[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch] ptrace-fix-2.5.33-A1

    On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

    > If we want to do this then we'd need to fix up every ptrace
    > implementation in every architecture to call the appropriate function;
    > it's a separate problem.

    which code relies on having debugged children only in the ->children list
    and not in the ->ptrace_children list?

    > > i'm not sure about this either. What happens if an (untraced) parent has
    > > traced and untraced children, and does a wait4. Would it confuse the
    > > debugger if the parent could get one of the traced tasks as a result in
    > > wait4? And how does the debugger solve this problem?
    > Well, it seems to me that when a traced task has an event, it should be
    > reported first to the debugger - for signals this happens in do_signal -
    > and then possibly to the normal parent. But I'm not sure if this
    > actually happens right now or not. Worth investigating some more.

    it just cannot happen. There are only two kinds of events passed via
    wait4: tracing related and exit related. An exiting task is not traced
    anymore. And two tasks cannot trace the same task - so it can never happen
    that wait4 wants to look at ->ptrace_children for events.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.023 / U:19.812 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site