On Sun, Mar 23, 2003 at 10:24:50PM -0800, raj wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:24:55PM -0600, Rajesh Rajamani wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi All,
> >>I'm working on adding a function
> >>
> >>void debugbreak(void);
> >>
> >>to glibc. I got the inspiration for this from Windows. Windows has a
> >>DebugBreak() function, which when invoked from a process, spawns a
> >>debugger, which then attaches to the process. I think this would be
> >>invaluable to linux developers in situations where they currently have to
> >>put an infinite loop and attach to a running process (say, to stop in a
> >>library that has been LD_PRELOADed).
> >>
> >>To this end, I've been experimenting and found out that gdb can't attach
> >>to a process that has been stopped. I'd like to send a SIGSTOP as soon as
> >>debugbreak() is invoked, so that all threads are stopped in a state close
> >>to the one they were in, when the debugbreak() was invoked.
> >>
> >>I spoke to Vic Zandy about this and he informed me that he had submitted
> >>a patch
> >>that would allow ptrace to attach to stopped processes also (the thread of
> >>discussion is pasted below). I believe the patch was not accepted at
> >>that time.
> >> I was wondering what the official line on this is? If there are no
> >> serious
> >>objections, will the community consider accepting the patch? It would go
> >>a long
> >>way in helping me accomplish my goal.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The question is, what _should_ happen when yu attach to a stopped
> >process? If the tracer receives the same one SIGSTOP that it normally
> >would, then it will just resume the program as if it weren't stopped.
> >Does that make sense or not?
> >
> Ideally, a stopped process should not be resumed, until it receives a
> SIGCONT. I ran two tests to understand the effect of this patch.
>
> 1. Attaching to a stopped process using gdb. This did not cause the
> tracee to continue.
No, that's not what I meant. When you attach using GDB, there is no
way for GDB to determine if the process was previously stopped or
running.
> 2. stracing a stopped process. This caused the stopped process to
> continue. On further investigation, I found out that strace calls
> ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL), which restarts the child, but arranges for the
> child to be stopped at the next entry to or exit from a system call.
>
> IMHO, the new ptrace semantics adds a feature to strace. If someone
> tries to run strace a stopped process without the patch, it will just
> hang, whereas with the patch, it'll let the process continue. Even
> without the patch, if a process that sends itself a SIGCONT is straced,
> the process will not stop. I do not think this is an issue, considering
> that ppl will not get any info by running strace on a stopped process,
> until they send a SIGCONT.
>
> In conclusion, the action taken by the tracer depends on the mechanism
> it uses for monitoring the system calls. That said, it'll definitely be
> useful if the tracer could find out the state of the tracee at the time
> of attachment and take appropriate action. Given below, is a port of
> Vic's patch to 2.5.xx series -
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -- kernel/ptrace.c 2003-03-23 22:15:33.000000000 -0800
> +++ kernel/ptrace.c 2003-03-23 22:19:27.000000000 -0800
> @@ -115,7 +115,10 @@
> __ptrace_link(task, current);
> write_unlock_irq(&tasklist_lock);
>
> - force_sig_specific(SIGSTOP, task);
> + if (task->state != TASK_STOPPED)
> + force_sig_specific(SIGSTOP, task);
> + else
> + task->exit_code = SIGSTOP;
> return 0;
>
> bad:
I'll test this here, give me a day or two.
-- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:16 EST