lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements
    On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
    > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:59:02PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
    >> We also have magic SIGSTOPs (magic in a sense they aren't
    >> real signals sent by other processes):
    >> * at PTRACE_ATTACH
    >> * in child (if PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK or PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE opt is on)
    >>
    >> For example, flagging PTRACE_ATTACH SIGSTOP so that it can be
    >> uniquely identified would solve some problems gdb is having with it.
    >
    > This, I don't agree with.  All we need is a better attach call without
    > the implied SIGSTOP, there's no reason to diddle with PTRACE_ATTACH
    > further.

    Sure.

    What do you think about SIGSTOP generated in in children on auto-attach
    via PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK / PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE options?

    IMHO, it would be good if we'd have a way to distinguish them from
    real SIGSTOP signals.

    --
    vda
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-03-02 12:09    [W:3.027 / U:0.452 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site