From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id YMXEDfCoPGEMWQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:40 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 244521EE24; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68C7A1EE1F for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E37983858428 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:02:38 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E37983858428 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1631365358; bh=lNhzI4q6hd1PeGSNcwTGoBBswclWvw8gQurvm7nFODY=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=pRBomAZiEr6Ftg4zU1+csQODirs753jTt7lnvOGKUlDFjiAcAhWPVkLKi/pe1Ds/d Col9HXswLfUTPpzKiWERWH45FrKa63JYZHkJs8z0M/pcWqFFUXfDfUxClmO27guCG1 6TptiZpZ4Y48J6r43wBUzhRWOaunyPt5z627ygXM= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B4883858400 for ; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:02:20 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4B4883858400 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 18BD2CFV025987 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:16 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 18BD2CFV025987 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AF6661EE1F; Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] gdb: don't share aspace/pspace on fork with "detach-on-fork on" and "follow-fork-mode child" To: John Baldwin , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20210910205402.3853607-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <20210910205402.3853607-6-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <021ba846-e43e-e6ef-c827-7e2b8ff8f5e9@FreeBSD.org> <58ca5b53-9d70-b8e7-e4c9-86b9f080f731@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2021 09:02:10 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <58ca5b53-9d70-b8e7-e4c9-86b9f080f731@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sat, 11 Sep 2021 13:02:12 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-09-10 11:16 p.m., Simon Marchi wrote: >>> Note that the problem described above happens today with "detach-on-fork >>> off" and "follow-fork-mode child", because we create new spaces for the >>> child. This will have to be addressed later. >>> >>> Test-wise, improve gdb.base/foll-fork.exp to set a breakpoint that is >>> expected to have a location in each inferiors. Without the fix, when >>> the two inferiors erroneously share a program space, GDB reports a >>> single location. >> >> So I wonder about the case where follow-fork-mode is parent and >> detach-on-fork is off? In that case, should the existing aspace/pspace >> stay with the parent and the child get clones? That is, using the >> follow-fork-mode setting to determine which inferior gets the existing >> aspace/pspace and assigning the cloned copies to the !follow-fork-mode >> inferior? > > I think that would work, to address the problem described above. > > Simon > Btw, I'm off until the 20th. Simon