From bf93d7ba99319c4ff5f23f35d9645dc9c3d391c2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Marchi Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:30:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add thread after updating gdbarch when exec'ing As mentioned in the previous patch, we should avoid doing register reads after a process does an exec and before we've updated that inferior's gdbarch. Otherwise, we may interpret the registers using the wrong architecture. When a process does an exec with "follow-exec-mode new", a new inferior is added by follow_exec. The gdbarch of that new inferior is at first set to some default value, probably specific to the gdb build (I get "i386" here), which may not be the right one. It is updated later by the call to target_find_description. Before that point, if we try to read the inferior's registers, we may not interpret them correctly. This has been exposed by a failure in gdb.base/foll-exec-mode.exp after the previous patch, with: Remote 'g' packet reply is too long (expected 312 bytes, got 816 bytes) The call to "add_thread" done just after adding the inferior is problematic, because it ends up reading the registers (because the ptid is re-used, we end up doing a switch_to_thread to it, which tries to update stop_pc). The registers returned by gdbserver are the x86-64 ones, while we try to interpret them using the "i386" gdbarch. Postponing the call to add_thread to until the target description/gdbarch has been updated seems to fix the issue. As to why this issue was uncovered by the previous patch: what I think happened before that patch is that since we were updating stop_pc before switching to the new inferior, we were filling the regcache associated to the ptid (this worked fine as long as the architectures of the previous and new process images were the same). The call to switch_to_thread then worked, because the register read hit the regcache. Now, it triggers a register read, while the gdbarch is not set correctly, leading to the "reply is too long" error. If this is right, it sounds wrong that we delete and re-add a thread with the same ptid, and are able to access the registers from the deleted thread. When we delete a thread, should we clear the regcache associated to that ptid, so that the new thread starts with a fresh/empty regcache? gdb/ChangeLog: * infrun.c (follow_exec): Call add_thread after target_find_description. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 5 +++++ gdb/infrun.c | 6 +++++- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 2fe8ab1..7e3a7ea 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,5 +1,10 @@ 2017-09-05 Simon Marchi + * infrun.c (follow_exec): Call add_thread after + target_find_description. + +2017-09-05 Simon Marchi + * infrun.c (handle_inferior_event_1): When exec'ing, read stop_pc after follow_exec. diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c index 1c6b186..1e301d3 100644 --- a/gdb/infrun.c +++ b/gdb/infrun.c @@ -1211,7 +1211,6 @@ follow_exec (ptid_t ptid, char *exec_file_target) set_current_inferior (inf); set_current_program_space (inf->pspace); - add_thread (ptid); } else { @@ -1243,6 +1242,11 @@ follow_exec (ptid_t ptid, char *exec_file_target) registers. */ target_find_description (); + /* The add_thread call ends up reading registers, so do it after updating the + target description. */ + if (follow_exec_mode_string == follow_exec_mode_new) + add_thread (ptid); + solib_create_inferior_hook (0); jit_inferior_created_hook (); -- 2.7.4