From: Luis <luis.machado.foss@gmail.com>
To: Matthieu Longo <matthieu.longo@arm.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann@linaro.org>,
Luis Machado <luis.machado@amd.com>, Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>,
Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>,
Srinath Parvathaneni <srinath.parvathaneni@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gdb: align siginfo_t with the Linux kernel definition
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:46:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ec78ae83-44bc-48e8-89a7-ab6b6b4d8f51@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8cb28dc2-6e51-4ce8-b785-fd66470e2e40@arm.com>
On 24/07/2026 10:18, Matthieu Longo wrote:
> On 23/07/2026 00:09, Luis wrote:
>> Hi Matthieu,
>>
>> On 22/07/2026 16:00, Matthieu Longo wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2026 22:09, Luis wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2026 17:52, Matthieu Longo wrote:
>>> --- a/gdb/linux-tdep.c
>>> +++ b/gdb/linux-tdep.c
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (sigfault_union_type, "si_addr_lsb", short_type);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* used when si_code=SEGV_BNDERR */
>>>>> + type = arch_composite_type (gdbarch, NULL, TYPE_CODE_STRUCT);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "_dummy_bnd", addr_bnd_pkey_padding_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_lower", void_ptr_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_upper", void_ptr_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (sigfault_union_type, "_addr_bnd", type);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* used when si_code=SEGV_PKUERR */
>>>>> + type = arch_composite_type (gdbarch, NULL, TYPE_CODE_STRUCT);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "_dummy_pkey", addr_bnd_pkey_padding_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_pkey", uint32_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (sigfault_union_type, "_addr_pkey", type);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* used when si_code=TRAP_PERF */
>>>>> + type = arch_composite_type (gdbarch, NULL, TYPE_CODE_STRUCT);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_perf_data", unsigned_long_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_perf_type", uint32_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "si_perf_flags", uint32_type);
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (sigfault_union_type, "_perf", type);
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* End _sigfault's anonymous union. */
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /* _sigfault is set by SIGILL, SIGFPE, SIGSEGV, SIGBUS, SIGTRAP, SIGEMT */
>>>>> type = arch_composite_type (gdbarch, NULL, TYPE_CODE_STRUCT);
>>>>> append_composite_type_field (type, "si_addr", void_ptr_type);
>>>>> + /* Since there is no possibility to declare an anonymous union,
>>>>> + using '_' instead. */
>>>>> + append_composite_type_field (type, "_", sigfault_union_type);
>>>>
>>>> Could we name this in a better way? Simply using _ is a bit strange.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about "_union" ?
>>>
>>
>> Naming is hard. Given it is an anonymous union, should it have something anonymous in the name?
>>
>
> I understand your point, but the name is going to start getting very lengthy.
> What about "_anon_union" ?
>
That reads fine to me.
>> If we're going to access this by hand, it might be worth having some easy to use too.
>>
>
> What type of accessors do you have in mind ? Compile-time ones ? Or runtime ones at the destination
> of the GDB users when accessing _siginfo ?
>
I meant when users go and try to print this struct by hand. The other
cases where gdb uses these we don´t care too much about the length of
the names, right?
> For the compile-time ones, I propose to add those defines:
>
> diff --git a/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c b/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c
> index f11eccc1bc1..1a03e6897d6 100644
> --- a/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/aarch64-linux-tdep.c
> @@ -2689,7 +2689,7 @@ aarch64_linux_report_signal_info (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
> si_errno = parse_and_eval_long ("$_siginfo.si_errno");
>
> fault_addr
> - = parse_and_eval_long ("$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault.si_addr");
> + = parse_and_eval_long ("$_siginfo."si_addr);
> }
> catch (const gdb_exception_error &exception)
> {
> diff --git a/gdb/linux-tdep.h b/gdb/linux-tdep.h
> index c19839fde2c..f739cc69111 100644
> --- a/gdb/linux-tdep.h
> +++ b/gdb/linux-tdep.h
> @@ -98,4 +98,18 @@ extern CORE_ADDR linux_get_hwcap2 ();
> extern bool linux_address_in_shadow_stack_mem_range
> (CORE_ADDR addr, std::pair<CORE_ADDR, CORE_ADDR> *range);
>
> +/* How the fields from siginfo_t's _sigfault can be accessed. */
> +#ifdef si_addr
> +#error "Matthieu: this should not happen"
> +#endif
> +#define si_addr "_sifields._sigfault.si_addr"
> +#define si_trapno "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union.si_trapno"
> +#define si_addr_lsb "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union.si_addr_lsb"
> +#define si_lower "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_bnd.si_lower"
> +#define si_upper "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_bnd.si_upper"
> +#define si_pkey "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_pkey.si_pkey"
> +#define si_perf_data "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._perf.si_perf_data"
> +#define si_perf_type "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._perf.si_perf_type"
> +#define si_perf_flags "_sifields._sigfault._anon_union._perf.si_perf_flags"
> +
> #endif /* GDB_LINUX_TDEP_H */
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/siginfo-obj.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/siginfo-obj.exp
> index 6c43d30b7b8..5e36b334068 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/siginfo-obj.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/siginfo-obj.exp
> @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault.si_addr = 0x666" " = \\(void \\*\\) 0
> gdb_test "p \$_siginfo.si_errno = 666" " = 666"
> gdb_test "p \$_siginfo.si_code = 999" " = 999"
> gdb_test "p \$_siginfo.si_signo = 11" " = 11"
> -gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._union._addr_pkey.si_pkey = 123" " = 123"
> +gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_pkey.si_pkey = 123" " = 123"
>
> with_test_prefix "validate modified siginfo fields" {
> gdb_test "break $bp_location"
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ if {$gcore_created} {
> gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault.si_addr" \
> " = \\(void \\*\\) $ssi_addr" \
> "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault.si_addr from core file"
> - gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._union._addr_pkey.si_pkey" \
> + gdb_test "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_pkey.si_pkey" \
> " = $ssi_pkey" \
> - "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._union._addr_pkey.si_pkey from core file"
> + "p \$_siginfo._sifields._sigfault._anon_union._addr_pkey.si_pkey from core file"
> }
>
>>>>> append_composite_type_field (sifields_type, "_sigfault", type);
>>>>> /* _sigpoll */
>>>>
>>>> Do we need to add some extra tests to validate that gdb can read these new fields?
>>>
>>> Indeed, I can add some, but I would like to avoid adding a test for all the new fields.
>>> Can we stick with the original purpose of this change, i.e. adding si_pkey ?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. I'm fine with having the proper coverage as a follow up patch. But it would be nice to at
>> least have the coverage for what you plan to use, like si_pkey.
>>
>
> The proper coverage is not easy. The test gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/siginfo-obj.exp relies on
> definitions of those fields via the glibc header <signal.h>. It creates local variables that GDB can
> print to test the values. Since the definitions of siginfo_t are not aligned, and some fields are
> missing, I don't think there is an easy way to do a full coverage.
>
> I propose to add a few fields from the anonymous union, like si_pkey, and the rest should implicitly
> work if si_pkey works.
>
> PS: I will publish a new revision once I get your confirmation about the naming, the compile-time
> accessors and whether I need to implement runtime accessors.
> For those last ones, please point me into the right direction for the implementation.
Just a suggestion. If it makes it easier this could be a unit test to
make sure we have the proper fields at least. But checking runtime
values would need something more involved.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-25 7:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-02 16:52 Matthieu Longo
2026-07-08 15:54 ` Matthieu Longo
2026-07-21 9:17 ` Matthieu Longo
2026-07-21 9:23 ` Luis
2026-07-21 21:09 ` Luis
2026-07-22 15:00 ` Matthieu Longo
2026-07-22 23:09 ` Luis
2026-07-24 9:18 ` Matthieu Longo
2026-07-24 9:42 ` Matthieu Longo
2026-07-25 7:46 ` Luis [this message]
2026-07-26 5:12 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2026-07-27 12:23 ` Matthieu Longo
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=ec78ae83-44bc-48e8-89a7-ab6b6b4d8f51@gmail.com \
--to=luis.machado.foss@gmail.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=luis.machado@amd.com \
--cc=matthieu.longo@arm.com \
--cc=srinath.parvathaneni@arm.com \
--cc=thiago.bauermann@linaro.org \
--cc=tom@tromey.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