[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements
    On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Tejun Heo <> wrote:
    > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 12:16:23AM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
    >> Let's spell this out in detail. Please correct me if
    >> I misunderstood your proposal:
    >> We have a stopped task under ptrace.
    >> (More precisely: debugger got a WSTOPPED notification via waitpid.
    >> Debugger decided to emulate the job control stop, therefore it
    >> keeps tracee stopped, therefore it just waits on waitpid
    >> without doing any PTRACE_CONTs).
    >> Another task sends SIGCONT to the tracee.
    >> Debugger gets waitpid notification of the
    > I think WSTOPSIG should be SIGTRAP as the tracee left group stop and
    > entered ptrace trap.

    This would be, by my count, 13th kind of SIGTRAP use by ptrace.
    Which makes multi-level if's in debuggers even more complex
    and more error-prone.

    Why not SIGCONT? This event is, after all, caused by SIGCONT.
    It would be so much nicer to be able to detect it with single if()
    in the debugger...

    >> Debugger can check PTRACE_GETSIGINFO, which succeeds.
    >> Debugger now knows it's a signal delivery notification.
    > No, it's not a signal delivery notification.  It's a ptrace trap
    > notification.  SIGCONT may not be delivered to this task.  Please
    > remember that it's the emission of SIGCONT which ends a group stop,
    > not delivery.

    From userspace POV it's really a kernel's implementation detail.

    >> Debugger performs PTRACE_CONT(SIGCONT) - it injects the signal.
    >> [Question: what if debugger doesn't? IOW: is it possible
    >> for debugger to suppress SIGCONTs, or not?
    > SIGCONT shouldn't be used here and wouldn't make any difference.
    > We're not in signal delivery path.
    >> IOW2: what should happen if debugger
    >> (a) does not do any PTRACE_CONT at all? or
    > The tracee stays stopped.
    >> (b) does PTRACE_CONT(<other_sig>)? or
    >> (c) does PTRACE_CONT(0)?
    > See above.

    This means that SIGCONT handler will be executed in the tracee
    after debugger does PTRACE_CONT(<any_signo>) at this point.

    Which makes SIGCONT special: debugger can suppress execution
    of other signal handlers in tracee, but not SIGCONT handler.
    Another special case. Can we avoid having it?

    >> Debugger gets WCONTINUED waitpid notification.
    >> [question: do we need this?]
    > I don't think we need this.  The tracer needs all the stopped
    > notifications but it doesn't need the continued notification because a
    > tracee is never continued without the tracer saying so.

    Yes, I think it's ok.

    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: 2011-03-02 12:23    [W:0.022 / U:38.268 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site