Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/03, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I'll ask the questions later.

Right now I do not see any holes (but I'll try more ;)

One question, to ensure I really understand you. To simplify,
consider this particular example.

Tracee:

	int main(void)
	{
		kill(SIGSTOP, getpid());

		printf("I am running\n");

		for (;;)
			;
	}

To simplify again, suppose that the debugger attaches when it is
already stopped, then it does PTRACE_CONT(0).

In this case the tracee remains SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED but prints
"I am running" and enters the endless loop.

(the new debugger can do PTRACE_SEIZE after that and "return"
 it to the stopped state without affecting jctl state).

Now, if SIGCONT comes (from anywhere) it clears SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED,
the tracee traps and reports this event to debugger.

Correct?


And, once again. In the mt case, I assume that SIGCONT makes
every traced thread to report this event individually, right?

(I am talking about the case when the group-stop was finished,
 iow "every" probably means the threads which participated and
 reported CLD_STOPPED to the debugger).


In both cases, later then this SIGCONT will be reported again
as any "normal" signal when some thread dequeues it.


Is my understanding correct?

Thanks,

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/