[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements
On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Indan Zupancic <> wrote:
> On Wed, March 2, 2011 08:44, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 06:07:35AM +0100, Indan Zupancic wrote:
>>> I'm not sure what Denys is talking about: Currently it's impossible to
>>> pass along SIGSTOP to traced processes. Quoting the ptrace manpage:
>>>           Restarts  the stopped child process.  If data is nonzero and not
>>>           SIGSTOP, it is interpreted as a signal to be  delivered  to  the
>>>           child;  otherwise,  no  signal is delivered.
>> AFAICS, that's not true.  SIGSTOP isn't treated differently from other
>> signals in the ptrace signal delivery path.  Maybe it was true in the
>> past.
> Well, I can't find it in the code either, but it's probably a side-effect
> of how ptrace is currently implemented. Test program code below, see for
> yourself. I hope it's a program bug, but perhaps it's a kernel bug, as I
> seem to get two SIGSTOP events when I allow the SIGSTOP, but only one when
> denying it.

This was discussed recently (again). Second SIGSTOP you see
is a job control stop notification (as opposed to signal delivery notification).
It's not a bug.

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: 2011-03-02 12:55    [W:0.119 / U:2.824 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site