[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: waitpid(WNOHANG) should report SIGCHLD-notified signals [Re: [PATCH 09/11] job control: reorganize wait_task_stopped()]
Hey, again.

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 07:47:22PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > But, the current WNOHANG wait is racy. It's unlikely but definitely
> > possible for WNOHANG to fail when it's expected to succeed (not the
> > above case but more convoluted ones).
> OK, so FYI it breaks current GDB.

That might be true but the race cases are very obscure. Not sure
whether the race conditions could actually affect ptracer. With
SEIZE, it won't, I think.

> > But, just out of curiosity, is there any reason the ptracer itself
> > should be doing something other than waitpid() while tracee is
> > running? It's not like ptrace requests can be issued during that time
> > and sleeping waitpid() is way saner mechanism to wait for tracee
> > events than signal.
> If the debugger wants to be single-threaded ("poll() model", not "threads
> model") and it wants to communicate with user and examine debuggee symbols and
> memory data it cannot use sleeping wait. GDB is single-threaded and it
> supports `set target-async 1': info '(gdb)Background Execution'

I don't think target-async is necessarily related. It doesn't really
matter whether the execution per-se is async or not. The ptracer can
be a separate thread regardless and the interlocking can be added on
top (or not).

Anyways, I would recommend using sleeping wait(2)'s for ptrace event
tracking. Well, signal notification would work but I think that would
be much more error-prone and has much higher chance of being fragile.



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 11:15    [W:0.115 / U:4.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site