Cp/r7438787 support additional registers in corefile metadata #10941
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…lvm#144627) The "process metadata" LC_NOTE allows for thread IDs to be specified in a Mach-O corefile. This extends the JSON recognzied in that LC_NOTE to allow for additional registers to be supplied on a per-thread basis. The registers included in a Mach-O corefile LC_THREAD load command can only be one of the register flavors that the kernel (xnu) defines in <mach/arm/thread_status.h> for arm64 -- the general purpose registers, floating point registers, exception registers. JTAG style corefile producers may have access to many additional registers beyond these that EL0 programs typically use, for instance TCR_EL1 on AArch64, and people developing low level code need access to these registers. This patch defines a format for including these registers for any thread. The JSON in "process metadata" is a dictionary that must have a `threads` key. The value is an array of entries, one per LC_THREAD in the Mach-O corefile. The number of entries must match the LC_THREADs so they can be correctly associated. Each thread's dictionary must have two keys, `sets`, and `registers`. `sets` is an array of register set names. If a register set name matches one from the LC_THREAD core registers, any registers that are defined will be added to that register set. e.g. metadata can add a register to the "General Purpose Registers" set that lldb shows users. `registers` is an array of dictionaries, one per register. Each register must have the keys `name`, `value`, `bitsize`, and `set`. It may provide additional keys like `alt-name`, that `DynamicRegisterInfo::SetRegisterInfo` recognizes. This `sets` + `registers` formatting is the same that is used by the `target.process.python-os-plugin-path` script interface uses, both are parsed by `DynamicRegisterInfo`. The one addition is that in this LC_NOTE metadata, each register must also have a `value` field, with the value provided in big-endian base 10, as usual with JSON. In RegisterContextUnifiedCore, I combine the register sets & registers from the LC_THREAD for a specific thread, and the metadata sets & registers for that thread from the LC_NOTE. Even if no LC_NOTE is present, this class ingests the LC_THREAD register contexts and reformats it to its internal stores before returning itself as the RegisterContex, instead of shortcutting and returning the core's native RegisterContext. I could have gone either way with that, but in the end I decided if the code is correct, we should live on it always. I added a test where we process save-core to create a userland corefile, then use a utility "add-lcnote" to strip the existing "process metadata" LC_NOTE that lldb put in it, and adds a new one from a JSON string. rdar://74358787 --------- Co-authored-by: Jonas Devlieghere <jonas@devlieghere.com> (cherry picked from commit a64db49)
reading, and one bug in the new RegisterContextUnifiedCore class. The PR I landed a few days ago to allow Mach-O corefiles to augment their registers with additional per-thread registers in metadata exposed a few bugs in the x86_64 corefile reader when running under different CI environments. It also showed a bug in my RegisterContextUnifiedCore class where I wasn't properly handling lookups of unknown registers (e.g. the LLDB_GENERIC_RA when debugging an intel target). The Mach-O x86_64 corefile support would say that it had fpu & exc registers available in every corefile, regardless of whether they were actually present. It would only read the bytes for the first register flavor in the LC_THREAD, the GPRs, but it read them incorrectly, so sometimes you got more register context than you'd expect. The LC_THREAD register context specifies a flavor and the number of uint32_t words; the ObjectFileMachO method would read that number of uint64_t's, exceeding the GPR register space, but it was followed by FPU and then EXC register space so it didn't crash. If you had a corefile with GPR and EXC register bytes, it would be written into the GPR and then FPU register areas, with zeroes filling out the rest of the context. (cherry picked from commit e94c609)
|
@swift-ci test |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.