lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Q: ptrace_signal() && PTRACE_SETSIGINFO (Was: SIGSTOP && ptrace)
On 04/23, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Yes. PTRACE_SETSIGINFO can change *info if debugger wants something
> > special. But then we do:
> >
> > if (signr != info->si_signo) {
> > info->si_signo = signr;
> [...]
> > Why? If the tracer changes ->exit_code it should know what it does.
>
> If it uses PTRACE_SETSIGINFO it should know what it does, and update
> the siginfo_t to match the signal it passes to PTRACE_CONT et al.
>
> > Why do we reset *info?
>
> PTRACE_SETSIGINFO did not always exist, and even now might not be used by a
> simple-minded application. If the user is sophisticated, it calls
> PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and then passes the signal number to match. If not, it
> never calls PTRACE_SETSIGINFO at all, but expects the signal number it
> chose to pass in PTRACE_CONT to behave "normally" in the tracee.

OK, understand.

> > But the real question, how can PTRACE_SETSIGINFO change ->si_signo
> > (for example, for do_signal_stop(si_signo)) if this in fact is not
> > allowed?
>
> It's allowed. You just have to pass the same value you set in si_signo as
> the argument to PTRACE_CONT after you do PTRACE_SETSIGINFO.

Yes, yes, I see. I meant "the tracer can not use signr != ->si_signo",
but now I don't see the reason it should.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-24 19:47    [W:0.135 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site