Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Vyukov <> | Date | Thu, 4 Feb 2021 14:35:36 +0100 | Subject | Re: Process-wide watchpoints |
| |
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:10 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 01:53:59PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: > > Humm... I was thinking of perf_event_open(pid == 0). > > It does not make sense to send SIGTRAP in a remote process, because it > > does not necessarily cooperate with us. > > > > But is there any problem with clone w/o CLONE_THREAD? Assuming the > > current process has setup the signal handler, the child will have the > > same handler and the same code/address space. So delivery of SIGTRAP > > should work the same way in the child. > > Nothing should be doing CLONE_VM without CLONE_THREAD. Yes, it's > possible, but if you do so, you get to keep the pieces IMO. > > Current libc either does a full clone (fork) or pthread_create, > pthread_create does CLONE_THREAD.
I meant a different thing. I meant that we could restrict synchronous SIGTRAP for (1) perf_event_open(pid != 0) and (2) disable it after exec. What is the issue here for clone without CLONE_THREAD?
| |