lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] semantics of singlestepping vs. tracer exiting
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 05:39:38PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> > BTW, speaking of alpha, what about PTRACE_SINGLESTEP when the task is stopped
> > on syscall entry/exit after previous PTRACE_SYSCALL, BTW? Looks like it will
> > be like PTRACE_CONT until we hit the first signal, at which point it converts
> > to singlesteping mode; unless I'm seriously misreading that code, we rely
> > on ptrace_set_bpt() done shortly after returning from get_signal_to_deliver()
> > if we found that we'd been singlestepping. Fine, but in this case we
> > had been resumed *not* in get_signal_to_deliver()...
>
> Again, "single_stepping |= ptrace_cancel_bpt()" after get_signal_to_deliver()
> should work I think... Not sure.

Umm... What would get us anywhere near get_signal_to_deliver() in this
case? Look: we do PTRACE_SYSCALL and tracee stops on the way into the
system call. We are blocked in ptrace_notify() called from syscall_trace().
Tracer does PTRACE_SINGLESTEP; that resumes the tracee and sets ->bpt_nsaved
to -1. The 'data' argument of ptrace() is 0, so tracee->exit_code is 0
so no signals are sent. TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE is cleared. And we are off
to execute the syscall and return to userland, without having hit do_signal()
on the way out. No breakpoint insns are patched in, so we happily proceed
to run the process until a signal arrives, same as we would with PTRACE_CONT.
What am I missing here?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-09-05 01:42    [W:0.102 / U:0.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site