Re: [patch] Fix for internal-error: linux_nat_post_attach_wait: Assertion `pid == new_pid && WIFSTOPPED (status)' failed.

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:41:20, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote:

> warning: Can't attach LWP 15338: No such process
> ../../src/gdb/linux-nat.c:1341: internal-error: linux_nat_post_attach_wait: Assertion `pid == new_pid && WIFSTOPPED (status)' failed.
> 
> When assertion fails, status == 0.
> 

> 
> 2009-10-13  Paul Pluzhnikov  <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
> 
> 	* linux-nat.c (linux_nat_post_attach_wait): Adjust assert.
> 
> Index: linux-nat.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/linux-nat.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.151
> diff -u -p -u -r1.151 linux-nat.c
> --- linux-nat.c	9 Oct 2009 01:57:12 -0000	1.151
> +++ linux-nat.c	13 Oct 2009 18:18:37 -0000
> @@ -1338,16 +1338,22 @@ linux_nat_post_attach_wait (ptid_t ptid,
>        *cloned = 1;
>      }
>  
> -  gdb_assert (pid == new_pid && WIFSTOPPED (status));
> +  gdb_assert (pid == new_pid);
>  
> -  if (WSTOPSIG (status) != SIGSTOP)
> +  if (WIFSTOPPED (status))
>      {
> -      *signalled = 1;
> -      if (debug_linux_nat)
> -	fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
> -			    "LNPAW: Received %s after attaching\n",
> -			    status_to_str (status));
> +      if (WSTOPSIG (status) != SIGSTOP)
> +	{
> +	  *signalled = 1;
> +	  if (debug_linux_nat)
> +	    fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
> +				"LNPAW: Received %s after attaching\n",
> +				status_to_str (status));
> +	}
>      }
> +  else
> +    /* We could have been notified about LWP exit.  */
> +    gdb_assert (*cloned);
>  
>    return status;
>  }
> 

Sorry, but this isn't correct.  If you look at
linux_nat_post_attach_wait's callers, you'll see that they
assume that the LWP is stopped, but still alive.
E.g, note how lin_lwp_attach_lwp is using an unconditional
`WSTOPSIG (status)'.  The assertion guarded us into doing
such undefined things.  Without the assertion, we get
to handle the scenario.

The patch makes it so that we still leaves the already
gone LWP listed in the lwp list.  If you _don't_ issue an
"info threads" right after "attach", then, a "continue" will
make linux_nat_resume try to resume this already gone
thread along with the other alive lwps, which will
fail with a hard and confusing error.

So see this for yourself, try "attach; c" a few times, and
sometimes you won't see any problem, but other times you
should see errors.


Event if we assumed you'd not get that error on resume, if
the LWP happens to exit with any another exit code (or signalled),
linux_nat_post_attach_wait's callers would store that `status' as
a pending status (the lwp->status = status assignments).
This meant that "attach; c" would make linux_nat_wait_1 notice
the pending LWP exit event (pending events are handled before
going into waitpid to fetch more events), and this event would
be confused with a whole-process exit, and reported to infrun.c
as TARGET_WAITKIND_EXITED.  That is, a thread exit would
makes the core of GDB think the whole process exited.


I think what we should do is just get rid of the new
LWP that we found exiting right after attaching.  Pretend we
never saw it existed.  Pretend that we had attached to the
process just right after this LWP exited.


I would believe that we can also see the main LWP exit right
after attach (in linux_nat_attach).  I'm not sure what exactly
is the best to do UI wise in that case.  If we want to store
the event pending to report later, we'll have to use
the lwp->waitstatus field, not lwp->status, due to the
fact that lwp->status == 0 is ambiguous with
"no-stored-pending-event" (see status_callback).  The simple
alternative is to again just pretend that the process had
exited before we managed to attach to it, get rid of it,
and error out like we would if the process didn't exist
at all when we tried to attach.

-- 
Pedro Alves