[lldb-dev] More linux process control and IOHandler races
Matthew Gardiner
mg11 at csr.com
Wed Aug 13 01:49:00 PDT 2014
Hi Greg,
Yes, it's clear that a planned attack is required for this. I understand
the need to have public and private state e.g. for source-level steps,
and indeed for launching a process. That's why I was a bit surprised to
discover, after debugging it, that the very first stop on "process
launch" resulted in ShouldBroadcastEvent returning true, as I thought
that this would be an instance where we'd like to hide this event from
the user. I did spend sometime trying to figure out how "ShouldStop" and
"ShouldReportStop" worked, but quickly found myself in the world of
thread plans, a world in which I know very little. So I'd certainly
appreciate you guys, who have that knowledge, thrashing this design out.
Having these (proposed) different ProcessState subclasses sounds to be a
far better solution than "broadcast hijacking + tricks". My only minor
critique of the design you floated being that you mentioned a "stack" of
these subclass instances, although when we receive an event (i.e.
waitpid returns a state change), it seems apparent that you'll then pass
this event to (all) the private and the public subclasses. (I tend to
think of a stack as being a system where you'd send the event to just
the topmost element). Is there any reason to have more just a private
handler and a public handler?
Regarding simple, interim fixes, I did come up with something (which
addresses the observation associated with this thread's first post),
which is a little icky. I'll attach it though, to see if it attracts any
comment. Essentially, I have a flag which allows first stop to be
identified, and arranges that ShouldBroadcastEvent returns false for
this stop. Also don't push the IOHandler for launching state (I think it
gets pushed later for the running state), and force public state change
after the first stop, which seemed weird, but was required, due to the
implementation of ProcessLaunch waiting for the initial trap.
Anyway, thanks for you and Jim's interest in getting a good
implementation for this out there.
Matt
Greg Clayton wrote:
> Jim and I have discussed the right thing to do which we plan to implement as soon as we get the chance.
>
> Current we have two process states: public and private. The private state is always up to date and is used to track what the process is currently doing. The public state gets set when we believe the end user should see an event that will update the GUI or TTY with the current state if needed (stopped or exited). There is a lot of tricky code that uses the private process state to manage things like the thread plans. Things like source level single step might involve starting and stopping and hitting breakpoints and single instruction stepping, but the user only wants to see the final eStateStopped when the source level step is done. Expressions are also tricky, the public state of the process is stopped, but when we run an expression, we might resume the process many times and the user will always see that the public state if stopped. Internally though the thread plans are doing a whole bunch of stuff to the process and the user never hears anything about these (no events go public).
>
> So the current public and private stuff uses broadcaster hijacking and all sorts of other tricks to avoid letting the end user know about the starts and stops that they shouldn't know about. We eventually want to have a new class, lets call in lldb_private::ProcessState for now, that manages the current process state and always receives the process events. There would be no more public and private events. We would have one version of the ProcessState subclass that would cause the GUI/TTY to update (replacing the public events) and one ProcessState subclass that would manage running thread plans. There would be stack of these and this will help us avoid the whole public/private/hijacking stuff we have now.
>
> Launching a process would end up pushing a new ProcessState class that could handle all the necessary starts and stop we need to get the process to a quiescent state that is presentable to the user. The ProcessState subclass could eat all the events it needs to while launching and then propagate the stopped or running event when it gets popped off the stack.
>
> So we should make some simple fixes for now to work around the issue and get things working, but it would also be great to get the new system up and running so we can make this easier in the future for people that want to make changes.
>
> Greg
>
>
>> On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:08 AM, Matthew Gardiner <mg11 at csr.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> jingham at 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 <mg11 at 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 at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev at 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 at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> lldb-dev mailing list
>> lldb-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mg_launch.diff
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1985 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/attachments/20140813/44bf8888/attachment.bin>
More information about the lldb-dev
mailing list