Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2011 23:14:14 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:06 PM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Currently it is already a problem that apps did not / do not expect the first
>> > waitpid after PTRACE_ATTACH may not be SIGSTOP.
>>
>> That's exactly why we want to add a better alternative, which doesn't
>> insert that blasted SIGSTOP.
>
> But it inserts blasted SIGTRAP (or some other signal) instead.

Not a problem. The problem with SIGSTOP is that we race against
possible real SIGSTOP.

> It would be best if such PTRACE_SEIZE (similar to PTRACE_INTERRUPT)

My understanding is that those are the same idea with different names.

> would
> guarantee the first waitpid afterwards returns the artificial signal from
> PTRACE_SEIZE.

Yes.

-- 
vda
--
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/