Correctly use GetLoadedModuleList to take advantage of libraries-svr4
Here's a replacement for D62504. I thought I could use LoadModules to implement this but in reality I can't because there are at few issues with it:
- The LoadModules assumes that the list returned by GetLoadedModuleList is comprehensive in the sense that reflects all the mapped segments, however, this is not true, for instance VDSO entry is not there since it's loaded manually by LoadVDSO using GetMemoryRegionInfo and it doesn't represent a specific shared object in disk. Because of this LoadModules will unload the VDSO module.
- The loader (interpreter) module might have also been loaded using GetMemoryRegionInfo, this is true when we launch the process and the rendezvous structure is not yet available (done through LoadInterpreterModule()). The problem here is that this entry will point to the same file name as the one found in /proc/pid/maps, however, when we read the same module from the r_debug.link_map structure it might be under a different name. This is true at least on CentOS where the loader is a symlink. Because of this LoadModules will unload and load the module in a way where the rendezvous breakpoint is unresolved but not resolved again (because we add the new module first and remove the old one after).
The symlink issue might be fixable by first unloading the old and loading the news (but sounds super brittle), however, I'm not sure how to fix the VDSO issue.
Since I can't trust it I'm just going to use GetLoadedModuleList directly with the same logic that we use today for when we read the linked list in lldb. The only safe thing to do here is to only calculate differences between different snapshots of the svr4 packet itself. This will also cut the dependency this plugin has from LoadModules.
I separated the 2 logics into 2 different functions (remote and not remote) because I don't like mixing 2 different logics in the same function with if/else's. Two different functions makes it easier to reason with I believe. However, I did abstract away the logic that decides if we should take a snapshot or add/remove modules so both functions could reuse it.
The other difference between the two is that on the UpdateSOEntriesFromRemote I take the snapshot only once when state = Consistent because I didn't find a good reason to always update that, as we already got the list from state = Add | Remove. I probably should use the same logic on UpdateSOEntries though I don't see a reason not to since it's really using the same data, just read in different places. Any thoughts here?
It might also be worthwhile to add a test to make sure we don't unload modules that were not actually "unloaded" like the vdso. I haven't done this yet though.
This diff is also missing the option for svr4 like proposed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D62503#1564296, I'll start working on this but wanted to have this up first.
Reviewers: labath, jankratochvil, clayborg, xiaobai
Reviewed By: labath
Subscribers: srhines, JDevlieghere, lldb-commits
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D64013