[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Ptrace documentation, draft #1
On 05/20, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Oleg Nesterov <> wrote:
> > Once again, PTRACE_KILL == ptrace(PTRACE_CONT, SIGKILL), except it
> > doesn't return the error if the tracee is not stopped.
> Oleg, this doesn't explain the resulting behavior in terms understandable
> to mere mortals. *What will happen* when user does ptrace(PTRACE_KILL)?
> Yes, it's obvious that the tracee gets SIGKILLed,

No, it is not necessarily killed. Once again, it is equivalent to PTRACE_CONT
except it returns 0 (but does nothing) if the tracee is not stopped.

"does nothing" is not 100% true, it does wake_up_process() but this shouldn't
be documented, this should be fixed.

> >> >> ??? can this SIGTRAP be distinguished from "real" user-generated SIGTRAP
> >> >>     by looking at its siginfo?
> >> >
> >> > Afaics no. Well, except .si_pid shows that the signal was sent by the
> >> > tracing process to itself.
> >>
> >> What about si_code? Is it set to SI_KERNEL for this signal?
> >
> > No, SI_USER.
> This is stupid. This signal is sent by kernel. Why is it flagged as "from user"?
> Maybe we should change it?

Well, may be... I dunno actually. Hmm. On a second thought you are probably
right. ptrace_report_syscall() does send_sig() too, but it sets SI_KERNEL.
I am starting to think, at least they should use the same si_code.

> (BTW, where is it generated in the kernel source? I found
> PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC generation, but failed to find
> "old-school SIGTRAP" generation code...)



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: 2011-05-23 14:13    [W:0.070 / U:8.548 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site