Re: s390 && user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testingresults on s390x)

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Thu,  7 Jan 2010 13:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. If the new process is
> > not auto-attached by the tracer it is wrong to delivere SIGTRAP to
> > the new process.
> 
> The change is right, but this log entry is confusing.  "auto-attached" has
> nothing to do with it, nor does anything about tracing the new process or
> not.  The new process has not experienced a PER trap of its own, so it is
> wrong to deliver a SIGTRAP that is meant for its creator.

Ok, I changed the wording slightly:

Clear the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in copy_thread. The new process did not get
a PER event of its own. It is wrong deliver a SIGTRAP that was meant for
the parent process.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

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