[pushed] Move vgdb special case into remote_filesystem_is_local

[Gary Benson <gbenson@redhat.com>]

Gary Benson wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On 05/15/2015 02:19 PM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > > Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > > When you say:
> > > >
> > > >  gdb_bfd_open contained a special case to make vgdb work with
> > > >  "target:" sysroots, but the implementation meant that GDB
> > > >  would fall back to the local filesystem if *any*
> > > >  to_fileio_open method failed with ENOSYS for *any* reason.
> > > >
> > > > I'd prefer to get an example target for one of those "if *any*
> > > > to_fileio_open ... *any* reason".  I'd like to understand the
> > > > real motivation for the change.  Because otherwise I get to
> > > > wonder why would we handle any other target that goes through
> > > > this path differently.
> > > 
> > > In what's upstream right now, the only path (I think) that you
> > > can get to the point in gdb_bfd_open with the workaround is if
> > > you're using a remote target that doesn't support file
> > > retrieval.  But, in the namespace-awareness series I posted,
> > > target_fileio_open can fail with ENOSYS if setns is not
> > > available.  That's the reason I made the change.
> > 
> > I'm still confused on that rationale, as it leaves one important
> > detail out: when target_fileio_open fails with ENOSYS because
> > setns is not available, I assume that gdb falls back to the local
> > filesystem.  But isn't that what should happen?
> > 
> > After your patch, we'll issue remote_hostio_open from within
> > remote_filesystem_is_local, and if the remote side doesn't support
> > setns, we'll get ENOSYS to "open", and thus fallback to local
> > anyway?
> 
> I'm trying to catch the specific case that a) you're using a remote
> target, b) that doesn't support file retrieval, and c) the user has
> not set any sysroot.  In that case the user is presumably using a
> "remote" client that operates on the local filesystem... so GDB
> should access the local filesystem.
> 
> For any other target_fileio_open failures GDB should not continue.
> For example, the user attaches to a process in a container, and that
> process's executable is "/bin/bash".  If GDB can't open /bin/bash
> _in_that_container_ (because setns isn't implemented) then GDB
> should not try to access /bin/bash in it's own container.  They
> might be different files.

FWIW I've pushed the patch to move the special case, I'll address
the other stuff with the mount namespaces series.

Cheers,
Gary

-- 
http://gbenson.net/