Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 11:59:02PM +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> We also have magic SIGSTOPs (magic in a sense they aren't
>> real signals sent by other processes):
>> * at PTRACE_ATTACH
>> * in child (if PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK or PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE opt is on)
>>
>> For example, flagging PTRACE_ATTACH SIGSTOP so that it can be
>> uniquely identified would solve some problems gdb is having with it.
>
> This, I don't agree with.  All we need is a better attach call without
> the implied SIGSTOP, there's no reason to diddle with PTRACE_ATTACH
> further.

Sure.

What do you think about SIGSTOP generated in in children on auto-attach
via PTRACE_O_TRACE[V]FORK / PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE options?

IMHO, it would be good if we'd have a way to distinguish them from
real SIGSTOP signals.

-- 
vda
--
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/