Messages in this thread | | | From | Denys Vlasenko <> | Date | Wed, 2 Mar 2011 12:02:37 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements |
| |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:59:02PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: >> We also have magic SIGSTOPs (magic in a sense they aren't >> real signals sent by other processes): >> * at PTRACE_ATTACH >> * in child (if PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK or PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE opt is on) >> >> For example, flagging PTRACE_ATTACH SIGSTOP so that it can be >> uniquely identified would solve some problems gdb is having with it. > > This, I don't agree with. All we need is a better attach call without > the implied SIGSTOP, there's no reason to diddle with PTRACE_ATTACH > further.
Sure.
What do you think about SIGSTOP generated in in children on auto-attach via PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK / PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE options?
IMHO, it would be good if we'd have a way to distinguish them from real SIGSTOP signals.
-- vda -- 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/
| |