On Jan 26 12:12, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jan 25 20:03, Jon Turney wrote:
> > On 25/01/2024 18:21, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jan 25 14:50, Jon Turney wrote:
> > > > On 24/01/2024 14:39, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 24 13:28, Jon Turney wrote:
> > > > > > On 23/01/2024 14:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jan 23 14:20, Jon Turney wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > So this situation with a JIT debugger is even stranger than my
> > > > emendations
> > > > to the documentation say.
> > > >
> > > > Because we're hitting try_to_debug() in exception::handle(), which has
> > > > some
> > > > code to replay the exception via ExceptionContinueExecution (which I
> > > > guess
> > > > the debugger will catch as a first-chance) (and goes into a mode where
> > > > it
> > > > ignores the next half-million exceptions... no idea what that's about!)
> > > >
> > > > That's not the same as signal_exit() with a coredumping signal (haven't
> > > > checked if those are all generated from exceptions, but seems probable,
> > > > so
> > > > the try_to_debug() there maybe isn't doing anything?), where we're
> > > > going to
> > > > exit thereafter.
> > >
> > > try_to_debug() is only calling IsDebuggerPresent() as test, and that's
> > > nothing but a flag in the PEB which is set by the OS after a debugger
> > > attached to the process. So the test is by definition extremely
> > > flaky, if the debugger is connecting and disconnecting, as you
> > > already pointed out.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if we can't define our own way to attach to a process,
> > > allowing to "WaitForDebugger" as long as the debugger is a Cygwin
> > > debugger. If we define a matching function (along the lines of
> > > prctl(2) on Linux), we could change our debuggers, core dumpers
> > > and stracers to call this attach function.
> > >
> > > The idea would be to define some shared mutex object, the inferior
> > > waits for and the debugger releases after having attached.
> > >
> > > Is there really any need to support non-Cygwin debuggers?
> >
> > idk
> >
> > I think something like that used to exist a long time ago, see commit
> > 8abeff1ead5f3824c70111bc0ff74ff835dafa55
>
> Yeah, just, as was the default at the time, without any trace of a
> *rational* why it has been removed. Also, it was too simple anyway.
>
> First, if we want to support WIndows debugger, the inferior has to check
> if the debugger is a Cygwin or native debugger. If a native debugger,
> just stick to what we have today. Otherwise:
>
> - Create a named mutex with a reproducible name (no need to use
> the name as parameter) and immediately grab it.
> - Call CreateProcess to start the debugger with CREATE_SUSPENDED
> flag.
> - Create a HANDLE array with the mutex and the process HANDLE.
On second thought, it might be a good idea to make this
interruptible as well, but given this is called from the
exception handler this may have weird results...
> - Call ResumeThread on the primary debugger thread.
> - Call WFMO with timeout.
>
> Later on, the debugger either fails and exits or it calls
> ReleaseMutex after having attached to the process.
>
> - WFMO returns
> - If the mutex has triggered, we're being debugged (but check
> IsDebuggerPresent() just to be sure)
> - If the process has triggered, the debugger exited
> - If the timeout triggers... oh well.
Corinna
