Re: [PATCH] ptrace on stopped processes (2.4)

From: Daniel Jacobowitz (dan@debian.org)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 08:58:02 EST


On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 10:48:42AM -0300, Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > No, that's not what I meant. When you attach using GDB, there is no
> > way for GDB to determine if the process was previously stopped or
> > running.
>
> Likewise, there's a race condition with any other concurrent use
> of SIGSTOP.
>
> Perhaps one could introduce a PTRACE_ATTACH2 that uses "addr" to
> indicate the signal that should be used to sychronize attaching.
> That way, programs that use STOP/CONT for their own purposes could
> be attached to with ptrace(PTRACE_ATTACH2,pid,SIGTRAP,0), or such.
>
> If the process is already stopped, the debugger would be notified
> with WSTOPSIG set to that signal instead of SIGTRAP.

Have you got an example that needs this? I'm not terribly concerned;
GDB's handling of SIGSTOP has always been pretty bad. Strace is a bit
better.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 22:00:20 EST