[x86_64-linux] ptrace (PT_STEP) causes 2 instruction step???

Joel Brobecker
2006-11-23T04:22:14Z

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone had seen something like this before.
We're running GDB on an x86_64 chip running Linux. I've seen
this behavior on SuSE and RedHat distributions. It's a bit weird
because they started appearing one day, even with our old releases
(ie tests that passed on the same machine with this release now
stop passing on the same machine - no update done).

This reproduces with all versions of GDB that I have tested: GDB 6.4
built by us, GDB 6.4 built by SuSE, and GDB from today's CVS.

Here are the symptoms: I have a program were we're stopped at one
instruction of a function. This is the return address from a function
call, where we landed after doing a "finish". I simulated this part
by inserting a breakpoint at that address and running to it. After that,
I do a "next" and here is what I see:

(gdb) b *0x401e41
Breakpoint 1 at 0x401e41: file x.adb, line 9.
(gdb) run
Starting program: /[...]/x

Breakpoint 1, 0x0000000000401e41 in x () at x.adb:9
9 Z : constant Num := F;
(gdb) n
0x0000000000401e4f in x () at x.adb:13
13 end X;

The unexpected part is that GDB did not stop at the begining of
a line, as evidenced by the address printed after the "next" has
completed.

Here is the assembly code:

0x00401e31 <_ada_x+0>: push %rbp
0x00401e32 <_ada_x+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
0x00401e35 <_ada_x+4>: sub $0x10,%rsp
0x00401e39 <_ada_x+8>: mov %rbp,%r10
[line 9 starts here]
0x00401e3c <_ada_x+11>: callq 0x401e14 <x__f.0>
0x00401e41 <_ada_x+16>: movsd %xmm0,0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp)
0x00401e46 <_ada_x+21>: mov 0xfffffffffffffff0(%rbp),%rax
0x00401e4a <_ada_x+25>: mov %rax,0xfffffffffffffff8(%rbp)
[line 13 starts here]
0x00401e4e <_ada_x+29>: leaveq
0x00401e4f <_ada_x+30>: retq

I expected GDB to stop at 0x00401e4e, which is the first instruction
of line 13.

At first sight, it looks like a malfunction of the kernel, because
"set debug infrun 1" allows us to see how we get there:

infrun: proceed (addr=0xffffffffffffffff, signal=144, step=1)
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0)
infrun: wait_for_inferior
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x401e4a
infrun: trap expected
infrun: stepping inside range [0x401e39-0x401e4e]
infrun: resume (step=1, signal=0)
infrun: prepare_to_wait
infrun: infwait_normal_state
infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
infrun: stop_pc = 0x401e4f
infrun: stepped to a different function
infrun: stop_stepping
0x0000000000401e4f in x () at x.adb:13

As you can see, each "resume (step=1,...)" causes the inferior
to step *two* instruction instead of one. I looked at the code
and traced it, and we seem to be doing everything right: The
resume operation is turned into a call to "ptrace (PT_STEP, ...)"
with the right arguments. It's then followed by a call to "wait".
After the inferior stopped, we find that we're 2 instruction later.

The behavior is actually relatively unpredictable. Sometimes, it
works fine.

I searched the internet a bit, and apparently this type of error
has happened a while ago. Unfortunately, I lost the link, but the
reports were saying that the problem they saw only occured in a
very specific case, which is not the case here...

Has anyone seen this before? Any clue? Surprisingly, all our
x86_64-linux machines started showing these symptoms on the same
day. All except one, which keeps working fine.

--
Joel