Re: [PREC/RFA] Add not_replay to make precord support release memory better

[Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:10, Michael Snyder<msnyder@vmware.com> wrote:
> Hui Zhu wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now, in replay reverse mode, if get error with memory entry, it will
>> output error. ?But it just affect the operation with this part of
>> memory.
>> So I make a patch to let it set the not_replay in memory entry to 1 in
>> this status. ?When replay forward mode, this memory entry will not
>> really set to memory.
>
> I like the idea. ?I like it a lot!
> Can this solve the problem with sbrk() too?
> (code comments below)
>

Yes.  After this patch, I think we can begin to make sbrk and munmap
choice don't stop inferior.
Maybe we can add a switch like:
set record memoryxxx auto     query to user
set record memoryxxx yes       stop inferior
set record memoryxxx no        not stop inferior

Please give me your comments with it.   And please help me choice a
fit name for it.  :)


>> For example:
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <errno.h>
>> #include <sys/stat.h>
>> #include <fcntl.h>
>> #include <stdint.h>
>> #include <sys/mman.h>
>>
>> int
>> main(int argc,char *argv[],char *envp[])
>> {
>> ? ? ? ?char ? ?*buf;
>>
>> ? ? ? ?buf = mmap (0, 1024, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE |
>> MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>> ? ? ? ?if (buf == (caddr_t) -1) {
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?perror ("mmap");
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return (-errno);
>> ? ? ? ?}
>>
>> ? ? ? ?buf[0] = 1;
>>
>> ? ? ? ?munmap (buf, 1024);
>>
>> ? ? ? ?return (0);
>> }
>>
>> Before patch:
>> gdb ~/gdb/a.out
>> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090720-cvs
>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
>> <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. ?Type "show copying"
>> and "show warranty" for details.
>> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
>> Setting up the environment for debugging gdb.
>> Function "internal_error" not defined.
>> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n])
>> [answered N; input not from terminal]
>> Function "info_command" not defined.
>> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n])
>> [answered N; input not from terminal]
>> /home/teawater/gdb/bgdbno/gdb/.gdbinit:8: Error in sourced command file:
>> No breakpoint number 0.
>> (gdb) start
>> During symbol reading, DW_AT_name missing from DW_TAG_base_type.
>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048425: file 1.c, line 17.
>> Starting program: /home/teawater/gdb/a.out
>>
>> Temporary breakpoint 1, main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=<value
>> optimized out>, envp=<value optimized out>)
>> ? ?at 1.c:17
>> 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf = mmap (0, 1024, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE |
>> MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>> (gdb) record
>> (gdb) n
>> During symbol reading, incomplete CFI data; unspecified registers
>> (e.g., eax) at 0x8048422.
>> 18 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (buf == (caddr_t) -1) {
>> (gdb)
>> 23 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf[0] = 1;
>> (gdb)
>> 25 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?munmap (buf, 1024);
>> (gdb)
>> The next instruction is syscall munmap. ?It will free the memory addr
>> = 0xb7fe0000 len = 1024. ?It will make record target get error. ?Do
>> you want to stop the program?([y] or n) n
>> 27 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return (0);
>> (gdb) rc
>> Continuing.
>> Process record: error reading memory at addr = 0xb7fe0000 len = 1.
>> (gdb)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> After patch:
>> ./gdb ~/gdb/a.out
>> GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090721-cvs
>> Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later
>> <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
>> This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
>> There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. ?Type "show copying"
>> and "show warranty" for details.
>> This GDB was configured as "i686-pc-linux-gnu".
>> For bug reporting instructions, please see:
>> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>...
>> Setting up the environment for debugging gdb.
>> Function "internal_error" not defined.
>> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n])
>> [answered N; input not from terminal]
>> Function "info_command" not defined.
>> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n])
>> [answered N; input not from terminal]
>> /home/teawater/gdb/bgdbno/gdb/.gdbinit:8: Error in sourced command file:
>> No breakpoint number 0.
>> (gdb) start
>> During symbol reading, DW_AT_name missing from DW_TAG_base_type.
>> Temporary breakpoint 1 at 0x8048425: file 1.c, line 17.
>> Starting program: /home/teawater/gdb/a.out
>>
>> Temporary breakpoint 1, main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=<value
>> optimized out>, envp=<value optimized out>)
>> ? ?at 1.c:17
>> 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf = mmap (0, 1024, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE |
>> MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>> (gdb) record
>> (gdb) n
>> During symbol reading, incomplete CFI data; unspecified registers
>> (e.g., eax) at 0x8048422.
>> 18 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (buf == (caddr_t) -1) {
>> (gdb)
>> 23 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf[0] = 1;
>> (gdb)
>> 25 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?munmap (buf, 1024);
>> (gdb)
>> The next instruction is syscall munmap. ?It will free the memory addr
>> = 0xb7fe0000 len = 1024. ?It will make record target get error. ?Do
>> you want to stop the program?([y] or n) n
>> 27 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return (0);
>> (gdb) rc
>> Continuing.
>>
>> No more reverse-execution history.
>> main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=<value optimized out>,
>> envp=<value optimized out>) at 1.c:17
>> 17 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf = mmap (0, 1024, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE |
>> MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
>> (gdb) n
>> 18 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (buf == (caddr_t) -1) {
>> (gdb)
>> 23 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf[0] = 1;
>> (gdb)
>> 25 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?munmap (buf, 1024);
>> (gdb) rn
>> 23 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?buf[0] = 1;
>>
>>
>>
>> Please help me review it.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Hui
>>
>> 2009-07-21 ?Hui Zhu ?<teawater@gmail.com>
>>
>> ? ? ? ?* record.c (record_mem_entry): Add not_replay. ?If this the
>> ? ? ? ?memory entry doesn't replay, it will set to 1.
>> ? ? ? ?(record_arch_list_add_mem): Initialize not_replay to 0.
>> ? ? ? ?(record_wait): In replay reverse mode, if get error with
>> ? ? ? ?memory entry, not output error, just set not_replay to 1.
>> ? ? ? ?In replay forward mode, if not_replay is set, don't set
>> ? ? ? ?memory entry to memory.
>
> A changelog entry doesn't need to explain so much.
> This much explanation belongs in comments in the code.
>
> Change log entries explain more "what was changed",
> and not so much "why".
>
> This should say something like:
>
> ? ? ? ?* record.c (record_mem_entry): New field 'not_replay'.
> ? ? ? ?(record_arch_list_add_mem): Initialize not_replay to 0.
> ? ? ? ?(record_wait): Set 'not_replay' flag if target memory
> ? ? ? ?not readable. ?Don't try to change target memory if
> ? ? ? ?'not_replay' is set.
>

OK.  I will change it.

>
>
>> ---
>> ?record.c | ? 75
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>> ?1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> --- a/record.c
>> +++ b/record.c
>> @@ -51,6 +51,7 @@ struct record_mem_entry
>> ?{
>> ? CORE_ADDR addr;
>> ? int len;
>> + ?int not_replay;
>
> This needs a more descriptive name (and some comments!)

OK.  I will add more comments.

>
> How about something like:
>
> ? ?/* Set this flag if target memory for this entry
> ? ? ? can no longer be accessed. ?*/
> ? ?int mem_entry_not_accessible;
>
>> ? gdb_byte *val;
>> ?};
>>
>> @@ -275,6 +276,7 @@ record_arch_list_add_mem (CORE_ADDR addr
>> ? rec->type = record_mem;
>> ? rec->u.mem.addr = addr;
>> ? rec->u.mem.len = len;
>> + ?rec->u.mem.not_replay = 0;
>>
>> ? if (target_read_memory (addr, rec->u.mem.val, len))
>> ? ? {
>> @@ -727,32 +729,55 @@ record_wait (struct target_ops *ops,
>> ? ? ? ? ?else if (record_list->type == record_mem)
>> ? ? ? ? ? ?{
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* mem */
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? gdb_byte *mem = alloca (record_list->u.mem.len);
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? if (record_debug > 1)
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "Process record: record_mem %s to "
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "inferior addr = %s len = %d.\n",
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? host_address_to_string (record_list),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? paddress (gdbarch,
>> record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.len);
>> -
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? if (target_read_memory
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (record_list->u.mem.addr, mem, record_list->u.mem.len))
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? error (_("Process record: error reading memory at "
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"addr = %s len = %d."),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?paddress (gdbarch, record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len);
>> -
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? if (target_write_memory
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? (record_list->u.mem.addr, record_list->u.mem.val,
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len))
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? error (_
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?("Process record: error writing memory at "
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "addr = %s len = %d."),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?paddress (gdbarch, record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? if (record_list->u.mem.not_replay
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? && execution_direction != EXEC_REVERSE)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.not_replay = 0;
>
> First of all, a comment to explain what's going on, please.
>
> Now -- if I understand correctly (and please tell if I'm wrong),
>
> 1) During the recording "pass", there's no change.
> 2) During the reverse-replay pass, if the memory is
> not readable or writable, we will set this flag to TRUE.
> 3) Finally, during the forward-replay pass, if the flag
> has previously been set to TRUE, we will skip this entry
> (and set the flag to FALSE.)
>
> So my question is -- is there any reason to set it to FALSE here?
> Is there any way that the memory can ever become readable again?
>
> Seems to me, once it is set TRUE, we might as well just leave it TRUE.
> Am I right?

I thought about it too.  I think if we don't need this entry.  We can
delete it directly.
But there is a special status, after release memory, inferior alloc
some memory and its address is same with the memory that released
memory.  Then the memory entry will can be use in this status.  User
can get the right value of memory before this entry.  So I think maybe
we can keep it.

What do you think about it?

>
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? else
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? gdb_byte *mem = alloca (record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (record_debug > 1)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "Process record: record_mem %s to
>> "
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? "inferior addr = %s len = %d.\n",
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? host_address_to_string
>> (record_list),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? paddress (gdbarch,
>> +
>> record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.len);
>>
>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? memcpy (record_list->u.mem.val, mem,
>> record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (target_read_memory (record_list->u.mem.addr, mem,
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.len))
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (execution_direction != EXEC_REVERSE)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? error (_("Process record: error reading memory at
>> "
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"addr = %s len = %d."),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?paddress (gdbarch,
>> record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.not_replay = 1;
>
> A comment to explain what's happening, please.
>
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (target_write_memory (record_list->u.mem.addr,
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.val,
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len))
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (execution_direction != EXEC_REVERSE)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? error (_("Process record: error writing memory
>> at "
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"addr = %s len = %d."),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?paddress (gdbarch,
>> record_list->u.mem.addr),
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.not_replay = 1;

Do you think we need a warning in this part?

>
> And again, a comment. ?This whole section needs more comments,
> but let's start with this, before it becomes even more difficult
> to understand.
>
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? else
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? memcpy (record_list->u.mem.val, mem,
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? record_list->u.mem.len);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> ? ? ? ? ? ?}
>> ? ? ? ? ?else
>> ? ? ? ? ? ?{
>
>

Thanks,
Hui