![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Roland McGrath wrote: > > This adds a new state TASK_TRACED that is used in place of TASK_STOPPED > when a thread stops because it is ptraced. Now ptrace operations are only > permitted when the target is in TASK_TRACED state, not in TASK_STOPPED. > This means that if a process is stopped normally by a job control signal > and then you PTRACE_ATTACH to it, you will have to send it a SIGCONT before > you can do any ptrace operations on it. (The SIGCONT will be reported to > ptrace and then you can discard it instead of passing it through when you > call PTRACE_CONT et al.) Ok, I definitely agree with the approach (I've not become schizofrenic yet, but as others can attest, I obviously change my mind occasionally, so sometimes I disagree even with my own suggestions ;) Looks pretty clean as an implementation. The question is whether we should aim for 2.6.9 or 2.6.10 - if the first, then I should probably take it now, otherwise it should go into -mm first and be merged early after 2.6.9 has been released, for the first -rc. I _looks_ pretty safe, and it's hopefully much less likely to have subtle bugs and races than our old approach had, but I have a hard time judging. I assume you ran all your gdb tests on the result? What's your gut feel? Linus - 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||