lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHSET ptrace] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE/INTERRUPT and group stop notification, take#4
Date
On Friday 03 June 2011 03:34, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > This should alleviate Linus' concerns that we are suffering from unnecessary
> > featuritis - that we invent API which is significantly different
> > from existing one, and as such users will not use it.
> >
> > Existing API doesn't use GETSIGINFO data per se to distinguish group-stop from
> > signal-delivery-stop, it uses the fact that GETSIGINFO fails on group-stop.
> > (Well, arguably it's not a "designed" API, more like "accidentally created API",
> > but nevertheless it exists right now). Oleg's proposal means that the new way
> > may be makde to work very similarly.
>
> Okay, you want to preserve %NULL SIGINFO on all STOP traps. Dropping
> si_pt_flags and using exit_code makes sense but I think we'll be
> better off enabling GETSIGINFO. The affected part of code has to be
> changed anyway

Well, not exactly. The affected part of code in strace *has been changed
already*. Latest version of strace finally does show "SIGSTOP delivered"
and "group-stop happened" events differently.

Now strace, ideally, can have a minimal change

- ptrace(PTRACE_LISTEN, pid, 0, sig);
+ if (this_is_group_stop)
+ ptrace(PTRACE_LISTEN, pid, 0, 0);
+ else
+ ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, pid, 0, sig);

and boom, group-stops are handled correctly!

> and with %NULL GETSIGINFO we effectively would have
> driven ourselves into corner if more information needs to be added
> later on.

Oleg thinks that GETSIGINFO may be not the best way to provide additional data.
Think about it. It's "get _signal_ info" op. By overloading it to mean something
else, we are creating yet another ptrace quirk: "sometimes GETSIGINFO will
return something else than signal info".

Oleg says he prefers to add a separate GETfoo op, with cleaner meaning.


> Don't current users unconditionally issue CONT(sig) anyway?

Yes.

--
vda


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-03 13:39    [W:0.132 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site