aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/gdb/NEWS
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAndrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>2023-03-03 23:17:39 +0000
committerAndrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>2023-04-29 00:15:42 +0100
commit00cdd79a5d3f910c1362b9c4654adea3db0a97de (patch)
treeb2572d0938bc4232988d9804f9aaf2cdb09c498c /gdb/NEWS
parentb63c50f9d4bd3c202150b480796ef8cfd4cc6875 (diff)
downloadgdb-00cdd79a5d3f910c1362b9c4654adea3db0a97de.zip
gdb-00cdd79a5d3f910c1362b9c4654adea3db0a97de.tar.gz
gdb-00cdd79a5d3f910c1362b9c4654adea3db0a97de.tar.bz2
gdb/mi: check thread exists when creating thread-specific b/p
I noticed the following behaviour: $ gdb -q -i=mi /tmp/hello.x =thread-group-added,id="i1" =cmd-param-changed,param="print pretty",value="on" ~"Reading symbols from /tmp/hello.x...\n" (gdb) -break-insert -p 99 main ^done,bkpt={number="1",type="breakpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",addr="0x0000000000401198",func="main",file="/tmp/hello.c",fullname="/tmp/hello.c",line="18",thread-groups=["i1"],thread="99",times="0",original-location="main"} (gdb) info breakpoints &"info breakpoints\n" ~"Num Type Disp Enb Address What\n" ~"1 breakpoint keep y 0x0000000000401198 in main at /tmp/hello.c:18\n" &"../../src/gdb/thread.c:1434: internal-error: print_thread_id: Assertion `thr != nullptr' failed.\nA problem internal to GDB has been detected,\nfurther debugging may prove unreliable." &"\n" &"----- Backtrace -----\n" &"Backtrace unavailable\n" &"---------------------\n" &"\nThis is a bug, please report it." &" For instructions, see:\n" &"<https://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.\n\n" Aborted (core dumped) What we see here is that when using the MI a user can create thread-specific breakpoints for non-existent threads. Then if we try to use the CLI 'info breakpoints' command GDB throws an assertion. The assert is a result of the print_thread_id call when trying to build the 'stop only in thread xx.yy' line; print_thread_id requires a valid thread_info pointer, which we can't have for a non-existent thread. In contrast, when using the CLI we see this behaviour: $ gdb -q /tmp/hello.x Reading symbols from /tmp/hello.x... (gdb) break main thread 99 Unknown thread 99. (gdb) The CLI doesn't allow a breakpoint to be created for a non-existent thread. So the 'info breakpoints' command is always fine. Interestingly, the MI -break-info command doesn't crash, this is because the MI uses global thread-ids, and so never calls print_thread_id. However, GDB does support using CLI and MI in parallel, so we need to solve this problem. One option would be to change the CLI behaviour to allow printing breakpoints for non-existent threads. This would preserve the current MI behaviour. The other option is to pull the MI into line with the CLI and prevent breakpoints being created for non-existent threads. This is good for consistency, but is a breaking change for the MI. In the end I figured that it was probably better to retain the consistent CLI behaviour, and just made the MI reject requests to place a breakpoint on a non-existent thread. The only test we had that depended on the old behaviour was gdb.mi/mi-thread-specific-bp.exp, which was added by me in commit: commit 2fd9a436c8d24eb0af85ccb3a2fbdf9a9c679a6c Date: Fri Feb 17 10:48:06 2023 +0000 gdb: don't duplicate 'thread' field in MI breakpoint output I certainly didn't intend for this test to rely on this feature of the MI, so I propose to update this test to only create breakpoints for threads that exist. Actually, I've added a new test that checks the MI rejects creating a breakpoint for a non-existent thread, and I've also extended the test to run with the separate MI/CLI UIs, and then tested 'info breakpoints' to ensure this command doesn't crash. I've extended the documentation of the `-p` flag to explain the constraints better. I have also added a NEWS entry just in case someone runs into this issue, at least then they'll know this change in behaviour was intentional. One thing that I did wonder about while writing this patch, is whether we should treat requests like this, on both the MI and CLI, as another form of pending breakpoint, something like: (gdb) break foo thread 9 Thread 9 does not exist. Make breakpoint pending on future thread creation? (y or [n]) y Breakpoint 1 (foo thread 9) pending. (gdb) info breakpoints Num Type Disp Enb Address What 1 breakpoint keep y <PENDING> foo thread 9 Don't know if folk think that would be a useful idea or not? Either way, I think that would be a separate patch from this one. Reviewed-By: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'gdb/NEWS')
-rw-r--r--gdb/NEWS6
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/gdb/NEWS b/gdb/NEWS
index 54b5da2..e3c095d 100644
--- a/gdb/NEWS
+++ b/gdb/NEWS
@@ -113,6 +113,12 @@ info main
without a thread restriction. The same is also true for the 'task'
field of an Ada task-specific breakpoint.
+** It is no longer possible to create a thread-specific breakpoint for
+ a thread that doesn't exist using '-break-insert -p ID'. Creating
+ breakpoints for non-existent threads is not allowed when using the
+ CLI, that the MI allowed it was a long standing bug, which has now
+ been fixed.
+
* Python API
** The gdb.unwinder.Unwinder.name attribute is now read-only.