From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [Precord RFA/RFC] Check Linux sys_brk release memory in process record and replay.
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:26:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <daef60380906140226x215008b5sdad2051613274469@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A342EBB.4020601@vmware.com>
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:56, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> Ping.
>
> OK, my bad for taking so long to get to this... please allow me
> to summarize the problem, to check my own understanding
> (tell me if I'm wrong).
>
For that "nice people" words. I just want to make a joke. :)
> Currently linux-record.c does not know how to "undo" a sys_brk
> system call. You (teawater) are concerned because if the child
> process calls sys_brk to free some memory, we cannot un-free it
> and therefore we may get into trouble by writing to the freed
> memory during replay. Something like this:
>
> 1) child allocates memory X
> 2) child writes to memory X
> 3) child frees memory X
> 4) user asks for reverse-continue
> 5) gdb tries to revert the write that happened in step #2,
> gets SIGSEGV because location has been freed.
>
> So far so good?
>
> Now, your proposal is that during the record mode, we will
> detect any sys_brk call that frees memory, and query the
> user whether to continue or give up.
>
> I'm not too crazy about that solution. I think it's
> awkward, and drastic for a situation that may only be
> a problem later on (or not at all). Let me throw out
> some other ideas:
>
> A) Is it possible to actually "reverse" a sys_brk call?
> Suppose we record the arguments, and when we want to reverse
> it, we just change an increase into a decrease and vice versa?
>
> B) Suppose we wait until an actual memory error occurs
> during replay, and THEN inform the user? It will avoid
> warning him about something that may never happen.
>
> We could use catch_errors to trap the SIGSEGV, and then
> check to see if the error was caused by a write to memory
> above the BRK boundary. You will still need to keep track
> of the BRK boundary, but you won't have that awkward early
> query to deal with.
The sys_brk just can increase and decrease data segment size. The
decrease behavior is very hard to replay.
I read some code of malloc and free in glibc. I found that most of
time, free will not call brk to release memory to system. Because it
is low efficiency.
So I think when brk release really happen, give user a query is a easy
way to handle it.
What do you think about it?
thanks,
Hui
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-14 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-05 13:07 Hui Zhu
2009-05-05 13:09 ` Hui Zhu
2009-05-05 18:41 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-06 2:13 ` Hui Zhu
2009-05-06 3:14 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-06 3:35 ` Hui Zhu
2009-05-06 18:28 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-07 2:21 ` Hui Zhu
2009-05-07 3:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-05-11 7:06 ` Hui Zhu
2009-06-09 2:17 ` Hui Zhu
2009-06-13 22:56 ` Michael Snyder
2009-06-14 9:26 ` Hui Zhu [this message]
2009-06-14 17:42 ` Michael Snyder
2009-06-15 8:04 ` Hui Zhu
2009-06-15 17:52 ` Michael Snyder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=daef60380906140226x215008b5sdad2051613274469@mail.gmail.com \
--to=teawater@gmail.com \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=msnyder@vmware.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox