From: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
Cc: gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in i386_process_record?
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 09:33:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <daef60380908100150k7693a835x544c3a8be033d144@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5706 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:39, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hi Hui,
>
> While experimenting with your dump/load commands, I think I discovered
> a bug in i386_process_record, in the handling of the "string ops"
> and the "rep" prefix. Looks like we are saving the same data over
> and over in the log.
>
> This was made using the attached sample program.
>
> (gdb) break main
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x80483c4: file memrange-reverse.c, line 29.
> (gdb) run
> Starting program:
> Breakpoint 1, main ()
> 29 memset (blob1, 'a', sizeof (blob1));
> (gdb) record
> (gdb) next
> 30 blob1[sizeof (blob1) - 1] = '\0';
> (gdb) record dump
> Saving recording to file 'rec.27255'
> Writing 4-byte magic cookie RECORD_FILE_MAGIC (0x26070920)
> [...]
> Writing register 7 val 0x0000000008049684 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049680 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1024 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000ff (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x0000000008049688 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049684 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1020 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000fe (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x000000000804968c (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049688 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1016 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000fd (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x0000000008049690 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x0804968c (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1012 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000fc (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x0000000008049694 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049690 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1008 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000fb (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x0000000008049698 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049694 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1004 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000fa (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x000000000804969c (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x08049698 (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 1000 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000f9 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing record_end (1 byte)
> Writing register 7 val 0x00000000080496a0 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing memory 0x0804969c (1 plus 8 plus 8 bytes plus 996 bytes)
> Writing register 1 val 0x00000000000000f8 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> Writing register 8 val 0x0000000000587be7 (1 plus 8 plus 16 bytes)
> [...]
>
> Altogether there were 256 duplicate entries, each one is
> four bytes shorter than the previous one.
>
>
Hi Michael,
I reproduce about issue. This is because "i386_process_record" record
rep string insn is not right.
I make a patch for it.
Please help me review it.
Thanks,
Hui
2009-08-10 Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>
* record.c (i386_process_record): Remove some error code.
---
i386-tdep.c | 27 ++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--- a/i386-tdep.c
+++ b/i386-tdep.c
@@ -4448,9 +4448,8 @@ reswitch:
regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM],
&tmpulongest);
- if (!ir.aflag)
+ if (ir.aflag)
{
- tmpulongest &= 0xffff;
/* addr += ((uint32_t) read_register (I386_ES_REGNUM)) << 4; */
if (record_debug)
printf_unfiltered (_("Process record ignores the memory change "
@@ -4460,27 +4459,9 @@ reswitch:
paddress (gdbarch, ir.addr));
}
if (prefixes & (PREFIX_REPZ | PREFIX_REPNZ))
- {
- ULONGEST count, eflags;
- regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
- ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM],
- &count);
- if (!ir.aflag)
- count &= 0xffff;
- regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
- ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_EFLAGS_REGNUM],
- &eflags);
- if ((eflags >> 10) & 0x1)
- tmpulongest -= (count - 1) * (1 << ir.ot);
- if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, count * (1 << ir.ot)))
- return -1;
- I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RECX_REGNUM);
- }
- else
- {
- if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, 1 << ir.ot))
- return -1;
- }
+ I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RECX_REGNUM);
+ if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, 1 << ir.ot))
+ return -1;
if (opcode == 0xa4 || opcode == 0xa5)
I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RESI_REGNUM);
I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM);
[-- Attachment #2: prec-fix-x86-strinsn.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1938 bytes --]
---
i386-tdep.c | 27 ++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--- a/i386-tdep.c
+++ b/i386-tdep.c
@@ -4448,9 +4448,8 @@ reswitch:
regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM],
&tmpulongest);
- if (!ir.aflag)
+ if (ir.aflag)
{
- tmpulongest &= 0xffff;
/* addr += ((uint32_t) read_register (I386_ES_REGNUM)) << 4; */
if (record_debug)
printf_unfiltered (_("Process record ignores the memory change "
@@ -4460,27 +4459,9 @@ reswitch:
paddress (gdbarch, ir.addr));
}
if (prefixes & (PREFIX_REPZ | PREFIX_REPNZ))
- {
- ULONGEST count, eflags;
- regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
- ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM],
- &count);
- if (!ir.aflag)
- count &= 0xffff;
- regcache_raw_read_unsigned (ir.regcache,
- ir.regmap[X86_RECORD_EFLAGS_REGNUM],
- &eflags);
- if ((eflags >> 10) & 0x1)
- tmpulongest -= (count - 1) * (1 << ir.ot);
- if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, count * (1 << ir.ot)))
- return -1;
- I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RECX_REGNUM);
- }
- else
- {
- if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, 1 << ir.ot))
- return -1;
- }
+ I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RECX_REGNUM);
+ if (record_arch_list_add_mem (tmpulongest, 1 << ir.ot))
+ return -1;
if (opcode == 0xa4 || opcode == 0xa5)
I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_RESI_REGNUM);
I386_RECORD_ARCH_LIST_ADD_REG (X86_RECORD_REDI_REGNUM);
next parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-10 8:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4A7BA1DE.6010103@vmware.com>
2009-08-10 9:33 ` Hui Zhu [this message]
2009-08-10 22:12 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-11 6:20 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-11 18:31 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-16 16:12 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-18 5:35 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-18 11:52 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-21 3:23 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 3:15 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-23 3:33 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 4:13 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-23 9:04 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 17:37 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 18:23 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-23 18:32 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-23 23:53 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 23:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-08-24 0:01 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-24 7:46 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-24 3:15 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-24 19:20 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-25 5:04 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-25 18:45 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-26 3:19 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-26 3:27 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-26 7:20 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-26 17:37 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-27 0:05 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-27 0:32 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-27 1:50 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-27 15:35 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-28 1:44 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-28 2:14 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-28 6:16 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-28 8:46 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-30 1:12 ` Michael Snyder
2009-08-27 1:44 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-29 6:51 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-24 20:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-25 6:53 ` Hui Zhu
2009-08-23 18:24 ` Eli Zaretskii
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=daef60380908100150k7693a835x544c3a8be033d144@mail.gmail.com \
--to=teawater@gmail.com \
--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