Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: SIGCONT misbehaviour in Linux | Date | 8 Dec 1999 18:20:11 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <m3bt81ndng.fsf@localhost.localnet> By author: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@cygnus.com> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes: > > > That's not enough to tell what the kernel is doing, maybe they have a bit > > smarter sleep(1) program. `sleep` can be changed to run nanosleep again if > > it received -EINTR and `req` is not null. You only have to pass as `req` > > the `rem` that you got back from the previous nanosleep call. > > I ran it under truss, you can do the same. The syscall does not return. >
Yes, tracing a program having this effect is not acceptable. I consider this to be a tracing problem, however. I have seen the same thing with strace -- in fact, stracing programs that rely on SIGSTOP is largely impossible.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |