From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 792B13858D35 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 02:48:45 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 792B13858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D20C51EDD8; Tue, 19 May 2020 22:48:44 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: GDB locks RPM database To: Sterling Augustine , Muhammad Umer Cc: "gdb@sourceware.org" References: <970dd8cd-d548-b19c-accd-07871b1d9ea1@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <662b173d-e40b-0f08-fecd-c9df4b3bb51d@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 22:48:44 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 02:48:46 -0000 On 2020-05-19 9:13 p.m., Sterling Augustine via Gdb wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 6:11 PM Muhammad Umer via Gdb > wrote: > >> But why take a lock? If the purpose is to get info about debug packages, >> why not just query the package database using rpm command and get the >> required information? Why is taking a lock necessary? >> > > Simon didn't implement the functionality, so you would have to ask redhat, > or whomever it was that wrote the code. This is not a part of a normal gdb > installation. Indeed. I peeked at the Fedora local patches, and this one seems to implement that feature, using librpm https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdb/blob/master/f/gdb-6.6-buildid-locate-rpm.patch So it's plausible that librpm takes a lock, and that lock wasn't cleaned up (perhaps because of crash), but I can't know for sure. Hopefully someone from Red Hat / Fedora can help more. Simon