[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] ptrace-fix-2.5.33-A1
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 12:39:02AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > If we want to do this then we'd need to fix up every ptrace
> > implementation in every architecture to call the appropriate function;
> > it's a separate problem.
> which code relies on having debugged children only in the ->children list
> and not in the ->ptrace_children list?

Every implementation of PTRACE_TRACEME leaves them in the ->children
list. They are never added to ptrace_children. Whether this is
_right_ is another question.

> > > i'm not sure about this either. What happens if an (untraced) parent has
> > > traced and untraced children, and does a wait4. Would it confuse the
> > > debugger if the parent could get one of the traced tasks as a result in
> > > wait4? And how does the debugger solve this problem?
> >
> > Well, it seems to me that when a traced task has an event, it should be
> > reported first to the debugger - for signals this happens in do_signal -
> > and then possibly to the normal parent. But I'm not sure if this
> > actually happens right now or not. Worth investigating some more.
> it just cannot happen. There are only two kinds of events passed via
> wait4: tracing related and exit related. An exiting task is not traced
> anymore. And two tasks cannot trace the same task - so it can never happen
> that wait4 wants to look at ->ptrace_children for events.

Oh. You are, of course, right.

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.079 / U:0.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site