Folks,
Regarding "launching using the shell", I don't think applies in the
buggy case that myself and Shawn are looking at.
I do:
(lldb) target create ./test
...
(lldb) process launch
...
and when I inspected the call to exec, I see that my exe name is the
program passed.
Thanks for the insight into the broadcasting of stop events. That
explains why I see in the ShouldBroadcastEvent, the ShouldStop and
ShouldReportStop calls.
However, it would be nice to know if the first stop event should be
broadcast for "process launch". I think it's an implementation detail,
and therefore should not. That would help to fix this issue.
However, Shawn's original suggestion to fix this issue circumvents the
above debate, by replacing the call of HandlePrivateEvent with
SetPublicState. So which fix is best? Calling SetPublicState rather than
HandlePrivateEvent is certainly more expedient, and avoids this
debate... but is it more portable/future-proof?
Matt
jing...@apple.com wrote:
If you are launching using the shell, you'll see more stops before you get to
the executable you are actually trying to launch. In that case, instead of
just running the binary directly you effectively do:
/bin/bash exec <binary> arg1 arg2
so that you can get bash (or whatever is set in $SHELL) to do the argument
expansion for you. GetResumeCountForLaunchInfo calculates this, then it is
stuffed into the ProcessLaunchInfo (SetResumeCount). On Mac OS X we always let
the Platform launch, then attach, so in that case the AttachCompletionHandler
does the extra resumes. I'm not all that familiar with how the Linux side
work, but it also seems to use the ProcessLaunchInfo's resume count.
Note that in general in lldb not all publicly broadcast stop messages are going to
result in a stop. For instance, all the breakpoint command & condition
handling goes on as a result of the broadcast of the public stop event, but the
process might just turn around an continue based on that. Whether to suppress the
broadcast and continue from the private state thread or broadcast the event and let
the upper levels of lldb take care of what happens from there on really depends on
where it makes sense to handle the stop. So for the case of breakpoint stops (or
stop hooks, another example), those end up being equivalent to user typed commands,
just done for the user automatically by the system. So having them happen in a
world where the public state wasn't sync'ed up to the private state ended up being
very awkward.
I haven't looked at the launching code in detail recently so I am not sure
whether it makes sense for the first stop to be handled as it is.
Jim
On Aug 7, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Matthew Gardiner <m...@csr.com> wrote:
Hi Shawn,
I spent some time today looking at how to arrange for ShouldBroadcast to return
false for this first stop. I managed to produce a quick hack for this (i.e.
just counted the number of stops), but due to other distractions (from the rest
of my job) I didn't get that far into discovering a nice way of achieving
this...
What I did discover is that with my build just doing "process launch" results
in 3 stops (and 3 private resumes). That in itself I find surprising, since I was under
the impression that I should see the inferior stop just once when exec is trapped by
PTRACE_ME.
I then discovered that for each of these 3 stops ShouldBroadcast calls
Thread::ShouldStop, the Thread::ShouldStop returns true for the first stop and
false for the other 2. Looking into these behaviour differences I then found
that from within Thread::ShouldStop we then call into the following:
StopInfoSP private_stop_info (GetPrivateStopInfo());
if (private_stop_info &&
private_stop_info->ShouldStopSynchronous(event_ptr) == false)
{
and also
bool over_ride_stop = current_plan->ShouldAutoContinue(event_ptr);
the results from either of these, it seems providing the reasoning behind the
different true/false returns. I'll return to spend a bit more time on this
tomorrow. Let me know if you get any further on a similar vein!
thanks
Matt
Shawn Best wrote:
Matt,
I think you are probably right, although there are other places where it
directly calls SetPublicState(). I was wondering about the possibility there
could be other listeners waiting for a broadcast public Stop event. Is that a
possibility?
Some others here were investigating some unit tests that were failing
intermittently (StopHook). Their description of the problem sounds unrelated
to the launch code, but this patch also magically fixes that.
Shawn.
On 8/6/2014 6:26 AM, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Shawn,
Like I said earlier your patch worked. However I think the right fix is to
arrange that ShouldBroadcast returns false for this first stop. I believe this,
because firstly no stops should be reported here since the user is only
interested in launching a program, and additionally because it enables us to
fix lldb without removing the call to HandlePrivateEvent. This, I think, is
important to preserve as the central point for process state change handling.
Matt
Shawn Best wrote:
Hi Matthew,
I have also been tracking this bug. I believe there are other bugs in the unit
tests failing indirectly because of this. I also have a patch that will fix
it, but was sitting on it until the other one landed. These bugs do not show
up on OSX since the inferiors are launched separately then attached to.
The first odd thing the launching code does is push an IOHandler when it sees
the state transition to 'launching'. This is odd because I believe the
launching program will always come up in a stopped state which will immediately
pop the IOHandler.
At launch, the process comes up in the stopped state. The launch code manually
calls HandlePrivateEvent() with the stop event, which then broadcasts the
Event. When HandleProcessEvent gets the public stop, it dumps out the current
thread state just as if an executing inferior hit a breakpoint and stopped.
One way to fix this would be:
1. Don't push io handler when state is 'launching'
2. Instead of manually calling HandlePrivateEvent, call SetPublicState().
Alternately, we could try and debug why ShouldBroadcast() returns true, but
that appears to be by design since it is expecting the public stop event to pop
the IOHandler that had been pushed when launching.
I have attached a patch demonstrating this. In conjunction with the other
patch for IOHandler race condition, it will fix a bunch of this kind of
behaviour.
Shawn.
On 8/5/2014 6:59 AM, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Jim,
I've been trying to debug an issue (I see it on 64-bit linux) where, I do "target create"
and "process launch" and despite not requesting *stop at entry*, the first stop (which I
believe is just the initial ptrace attach stop) is reported to the lldb command line. I added some
fprintf to Process::HandlePrivateEvent, which counts the number of eStoppedState events seen and
whether ShouldBroadcastEvent returns true for this event. Here's the output from my program with
diagnostic:
(lldb) target create ~/me/i64-hello.elf
Current executable set to '~/me/i64-hello.elf' (x86_64).
(lldb) process launch
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent launching stopped_count 0 should_broadcast 1
Process 31393 launching
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent stopped stopped_count 1 should_broadcast 1
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent running stopped_count 1 should_broadcast 1
Process 31393 launched: 'i64-hello.elf' (x86_64)
Process 31393 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 31393, 0x0000003675a011f0, name = 'i64-hello.elf', stop
reason = trace
frame #0: 0x0000003675a011f0
-> 0x3675a011f0: movq %rsp, %rdi
0x3675a011f3: callq 0x3675a046e0
0x3675a011f8: movq %rax, %r12
0x3675a011fb: movl 0x21eb97(%rip), %eax
(lldb) MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent stopped stopped_count 2 should_broadcast 0
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent running stopped_count 2 should_broadcast 0
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent stopped stopped_count 3 should_broadcast 0
MG Process::HandlePrivateEvent running stopped_count 3 should_broadcast 0
In summary, lldb reports the inferior to be stopped (even though /proc/pid/status and
lldb "target list" say it is running). Clearly this is wrong (hence my earlier
post).
Am I correct in assuming that when ShouldBroadcastEvent returns true this
means that lldb should show this event to the debug user? (And thus hide other
events where ShouldBroadcastEvent=false).
What puzzled me was why ShouldBroadcastEvent return true for this very first
stop. Is this a bug?
I also spent sometime at ShouldBroadcastEvent and saw that this:
case eStateStopped:
case eStateCrashed:
case eStateSuspended:
{
....
if (was_restarted || should_resume || m_resume_requested)
{
evaluates as false, and hence the PrivateResume code is not called... does this
seem buggy to you for this very first stop?
I thought I'd try asking you, since in a previous mail from Greg, he cited you
as being a thread-plan expert. (Hope that's ok!). I'd really appreciate your
help in clarifying the above questions for me, and if you have time, giving me
some ideas as to how to trace this one further e.g. how
m_thread_list.ShouldStop and m_thread_list.ShouldReportStop should behave, etc.
thanks for your help
Matt
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
Folks,
In addition to the overlapping prompt race Shawn Best and myself are looking
at, I'm seeing another issue where if I launch a process, I get a stop
(presumably the in) being reported to the UI.
(lldb) target create ~/mydir/i64-hello.elf
Current executable set to '~/mydir/i64-hello.elf' (x86_64).
(lldb) process launch
Process 27238 launching
Process 27238 launched: '64-hello.elf' (x86_64)
Process 27238 stopped
* thread #1: tid = 27238, 0x0000003675a011f0, name = 'i64-hello.elf'
frame #0:
(lldb) target list
Current targets:
* target #0: i64-hello.elf ( arch=x86_64-unknown-linux, platform=host,
pid=27238, state=running )
(lldb)
As you can see the "target list" reflects that the process is running. Which I
confirmed by looking at /proc/27238/status.
Anyone else seeing this?
thanks
Matt
Member of the CSR plc group of companies. CSR plc registered in England and
Wales, registered number 4187346, registered office Churchill House, Cambridge
Business Park, Cowley Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WZ, United Kingdom
More information can be found at www.csr.com <http://www.csr.com>. Keep up to date with CSR on our technical
blog, www.csr.com/blog <http://www.csr.com/blog>, CSR people blog, www.csr.com/people
<http://www.csr.com/people>, YouTube, www.youtube.com/user/CSRplc <http://www.youtube.com/user/CSRplc>,
Facebook, www.facebook.com/pages/CSR/191038434253534 <http://www.facebook.com/pages/CSR/191038434253534>, or
follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CSR_plc <http://www.twitter.com/CSR_plc>.
New for 2014, you can now access the wide range of products powered by aptX at
www.aptx.com <http://www.aptx.com>.
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
To report this email as spam click
https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/EjKNgqvIx0TGX2PQPOmvUj!GOBh06pKKNwnTW0ZqkNYNbZeofOurgZMo6Cl2EgPiaCw7kl6fPUTCXaTERp6oIw==
<https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/EjKNgqvIx0TGX2PQPOmvUj%21GOBh06pKKNwnTW0ZqkNYNbZeofOurgZMo6Cl2EgPiaCw7kl6fPUTCXaTERp6oIw==>
.
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu>
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
