Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:21:08 -0800
From:      Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
To:        Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
Cc:        Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Michael Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>, "George V. Neville-Neil" <gnn@neville-neil.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Kernel Debugging over the Ethernet? 
Message-ID:  <200202251821.NAA13901@marlborough.cnchost.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 23 Feb 2002 12:12:30 PST." <3C77F7AE.76EAAE24@mindspring.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The value of network debugging to me is not that I can
> avoid buying a serial cable (big deal), it's that I can
> do the debugging remotely.

Agreed.

> If I'm going to ssh into a local machine and debug from
> there, then I can use a serial cable.

The serial cable solution does not scale too well when you
have many people simulteneously debugging multiple kernels.
If you use 8-port serial cards on a machine and connect every
other machine's serial console to it, that machine can become
the bottleneck + even in a lab keeping track of all the
serial cables etc.  can be a pain.  For us the ability to log
in any test machine and debug any other test machine was very
valuable.

> The other issue is that, doing remote debugging from a
> local machine, means I have to expose my source code on
> that machine.  If I tunnel in, insteaD, well, then I'm
> not exposing the source code.

There are other alternatives if this is an issue.  For
instance on a local machine you can put a little proxy  or a
tunnel endpoint.  But see below.

> > > For me the biggest reason for not using any IP was to
> > > minimize any perturbation due to the debugger.  The fact that
> > > we have to steal mbufs is bad enough.
> > 
> > I agree, especially when we will have locking etc for the mbuf queues.
> > It's a pitty we can't intercept the mbuf allocate routines..
> > then we could keep a couple for ourself :-)
> 
> IP is so you can make it through a cisco, etc. to another
> routable segment.

Oh I know that; but the cost of that convenience seems high.

For us, with a lab full of test machines (used for simulating
and testing various IP network clouds) a non-IP solution was
preferable.

But I can see that for other situations (such as debugging a
machine colocated at your ISP, or debugging kernels in the
field (ouch!)) our solution is far from ideal.  Still, adding
a separate tcp/ip stack just for debugging (as someone seemed
to suggest) seems excessive.

-- bakul

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202251821.NAA13901>