[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectPTRACE_SEIZE should not stop [Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE]
On Sun, 08 May 2011 17:48:56 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> The usage is the same with PTRACE_ATTACH but it takes PTRACE_SEIZE_*
> flags in @data.

> After PTRACE_SEIZE, tracee will trap.

PTRACE_SEIZE does not need to stop, there is that new PTRACE_INTERRUPT for it.
This is not an improvement.

It was already addressed by me before so I will give more reasons:

GDB already has mode `set observer on' (in this case we are interested in its
part `set may-interrupt off') - see: $ info '(gdb)Observer Mode'
# If you want to [...] observe program behavior without any chance of
# disruption by GDB
This is an increasingly requested feature as one of the ways of monitoring.

There are also requests to handle applications using 10000+ threads, which
currently have problems with GDB. One can imagine a needless
waitpid+PTRACE_CONT is not a help.

There could be a new PTRACE_SEIZE_INTERRUPT option in @data so that
applications does not have to use two syscalls (PTRACE_SEIZE
+ PTRACE_INTERRUPT) if the applications really want to perform some operations
on the tracee requiring having it stopped after the attachment. (Personally
I do not think this single vs. double syscall difference is worth the new

> Which trap will happen isn't fixed. If other trap conditions exist (signal
> delivery or group stop), they might be taken; otherwise, a trap with
> exit_code SIGTRAP | (PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT << 8) is taken.

What if PTRACE_INTERRUPT is called by tracer only after the tracee has stopped
on a signal delivery? It should be ignored in such case - as the first signal
will not be PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT. (Sorry if you have stated it somewhere.)


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-15 17:59    [W:0.415 / U:12.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site