DavidSpickett added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Plugins/Process/Linux/NativeProcessLinux.cpp:1357 + + if (error.Fail()) + return error; ---------------- omjavaid wrote: > DavidSpickett wrote: > > omjavaid wrote: > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > omjavaid wrote: > > > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > > > > DavidSpickett wrote: > > > > > > > > omjavaid wrote: > > > > > > > > > ptrace request is a success if number of tags requested is > > > > > > > > > not equal to no of tags read? If not then this and following > > > > > > > > > condition may be redundant. > > > > > > > > Well ptracewrapper doesn't check the iovec, but I'll check the > > > > > > > > kernel source to see if it's actually possible for it to fail > > > > > > > > that way. > > > > > > > In `linux/arch/arm64/kernel/mte.c` `__access_remote_tags` there > > > > > > > is a comment: > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > > + * Access MTE tags in another process' address space as given in > > > > > > > mm. Update > > > > > > > + * the number of tags copied. Return 0 if any tags copied, error > > > > > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > + * Inspired by __access_remote_vm(). > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *any tags* being the key words. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So the scenario is: > > > > > > > * ask to read from addr X in page 0, with length of pagesize+some > > > > > > > so the range spills into page 1 > > > > > > > * kernel can access page 0, reads tags until the end of the page > > > > > > > * tries to access page 1 to read the rest, fails, returns 0 > > > > > > > (success) since *some* tags were read > > > > > > > * we see the ptrace call succeeded but with less tags than we > > > > > > > expected > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see it's worth dealing with this corner case here since > > > > > > > lldb will look before it leaps. It would have errored much > > > > > > > earlier here because either page 1 isn't in the tracee's memory > > > > > > > regions or it wasn't MTE enabled. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Added a comment in the code too. > > > > > This means emitting less than requested number of tags is legit. > > > > > However we have set tags vector size equal to whatever we have > > > > > requested. We set error string which is actually not being used > > > > > anywhere and can be removed in favor of a log message to help with > > > > > debugging if needed. > > > > > > > > > > Also we need to resize the vector after ptrace request so we use this > > > > > size in gdb remote reply. > > > > I'll log that error in in GDBRemoteCommunicationServerLLGS.cpp. > > > > > > > > I'll do what you suggested to support partial read on the server side. > > > > Then lldb client can error if it doesn't get what it expected. > > > > (testing partial reads on the lldb side is going to be very difficult > > > > anyway since we'd need a valid smaps entry to even issue one) > > > If we are following an approach similar to m/M gdb remote packets for > > > tags then its ok to read partial data in case a part memory in requested > > > address range was inaccessible. May be make appropriate adjustment for > > > command output I dont recall what currently emit out for partial memory > > > reads but should be something like <tags not available> > > > > > > > > I did some digging and lldb-server does not return partial data when a read > > fails. > > ``` > > for (bytes_read = 0; bytes_read < size; bytes_read += remainder) { > > Status error = NativeProcessLinux::PtraceWrapper( > > PTRACE_PEEKDATA, GetID(), (void *)addr, nullptr, 0, &data); > > if (error.Fail()) > > return error; > > > > remainder = size - bytes_read; > > <...> > > dst += k_ptrace_word_size; > > } > > return Status(); > > ``` > > > > I was able to test partial writes too. There too we don't attempt to > > restore if we only wrote a smaller amount, writing less than the total is a > > failure. > > > > However, it is true that I'm not handling the syscall properly. I need to > > loop like readmemory does. So I'm going to do that. > > Loop until we've read all tags, or return the error we get. > Considering gdb remote protocol this is not complying with 'm' packet whick > says: > "The reply may contain fewer addressable memory units than requested if the > server was able to read only part of the region of memory." > > May be we can fix this in a separate patch where LLDB should emit proper > error code based on which either we can completely fail or send partial read > data. > What do you think ? That would be the ideal thing to do, however I was wrong about lldb not supporting it at all. In fact memory read can do partial results: ``` <step to clear caches> (lldb) memory read 0x0000fffff7ff7000-16 lldb < 34> send packet: $qMemoryRegionInfo:fffff7ff9010#df lldb < 55> read packet: $start:fffff7ff9000;size:1000;permissions:rw;flags:;#fa lldb < 50> send packet: $Mfffff7ff9010,f:000000000000000000000000000000#84 lldb < 6> read packet: $OK#9a lldb < 34> send packet: $qMemoryRegionInfo:fffff7ff9010#df lldb < 55> read packet: $start:fffff7ff9000;size:1000;permissions:rw;flags:;#fa lldb < 36> send packet: $Mfffff7ff9010,8:0000000000000000#b6 lldb < 6> read packet: $OK#9a lldb < 34> send packet: $qMemoryRegionInfo:fffff7ff9010#df lldb < 55> read packet: $start:fffff7ff9000;size:1000;permissions:rw;flags:;#fa lldb < 36> send packet: $Mfffff7ff9010,8:f06ffff7ffff0000#a9 lldb < 6> read packet: $OK#9a lldb < 21> send packet: $xfffff7ff9000,200#00 lldb < 516> read packet: $<512 bytes>#53 lldb < 21> send packet: $xfffff7ff6e00,200#32 lldb < 516> read packet: $<512 bytes>#0a lldb < 21> send packet: $xfffff7ff7000,200#fe <<<< Fails to read the last 16 bytes lldb < 7> read packet: $E08#ad 0xfffff7ff6ff0: 01 02 03 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 0xfffff7ff7000: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ warning: Not all bytes (16/32) were able to be read from 0xfffff7ff6ff0. ``` Except we're not doing it by getting a smaller reply (not in this example anyway), it's working because we split up the reads in such a way that they tend to line up with the failing addresses. So yeah it's probably worth fixing from a correctness point of view but for lldb to lldb-server we've got an equivalent already. As for MTE would you be ok with not allowing partial reads, since the spec as proposed does not mention them? (what I said before but just to be sure) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D95601/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D95601 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits