Re: [PATCH] Make only user-specified executable filenames sticky

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

On Fri, Jul 03, 2015 at 12:14:18PM +0100, Gary Benson wrote:
> Don Breazeal wrote:
> > On 6/5/2015 2:37 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > > Don Breazeal wrote:
> > > > On 5/6/2015 3:26 AM, Gary Benson wrote:
> > > > > In GDB some executable files are supplied by the user
> > > > > (e.g. using a "file" command) and some are determined by GDB
> > > > > (e.g. while processing an "attach" command).  GDB will not
> > > > > attempt to determine a filename if one has been set.  This
> > > > > causes problems if you attach to one process and then attach
> > > > > to another: GDB will not attempt to discover the main
> > > > > executable on the second attach.  If the two processes have
> > > > > different main executable files then the symbols will now be
> > > > > wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > This commit updates GDB to keep track of which executable
> > > > > filenames were supplied by the user.  When GDB might attempt
> > > > > to determine an executable filename and one is already set,
> > > > > filenames determined by GDB may be overridden but
> > > > > user-supplied filenames will not.
> > > > 
> > > > How does this interact with follow-exec-mode?  If
> > > > follow-exec-mode is 'new' and the program execs, then 'run' will
> > > > use the original executable file.  But if follow-exec-mode is
> > > > 'same' and the program execs, then 'run' will use the executable
> > > > file that was active after the exec call.
Hi Gary,

> > > > In the follow-exec-mode == 'same' instance, is the assumption
> > > > that the exec'd executable file takes on the same
> > > > 'user-supplied' attribute as the initial executable, since it is
> > > > using the original inferior?
> > > >
> > > > If so, is there a scenario where:
> > > >  * the user supplies the exec file name
> > > >  * the program execs, so the exec file name is now different
> > > >  * then the user tries to do an attach (without an exec file name)
> > > >    to a process running the original exec file, and gets the wrong
> > > >    exec file name?
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure.  Where would I need to look to check this out?
> > > (Where is the bit that updates the filename after exec?)
> > 
> > I think it goes like this: infrun.c:follow_exec calls
> > exec.c:exec_file_attach, which updates the name of the executable.
> 
> Ah, there is exactly the scenario you describe Don, good call.
> Joel, I can fix v3 of this patch to zero exec_file_is_user_supplied
> before the exec_file_attach in follow_exec.
> 
> I'm not convinced this patch will not introduce new bugs, the whole
> handling of how/where executable and/or symbol files get changed
> seems... haphazard :)  That's mainly why I'd put this patch on the
> back burner.
> 
> I'm on the fence as to whether this should be committed, so I'll
> defer to you Joel.  If you say commit I'll re-test and push.

Now that the branch has been cut, I'm thinking it would be a good
to start getting the ball rolling again. WDYT?

-- 
Joel