Re: strace, accept(), ERESTARTSYS and EINTR

[Phil Endecott]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "Phil Endecott" <phil_wueww_endecott@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > "Phil Endecott" <phil_wueww_endecott@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > However, there's a lot of code and I know that there are bugs in it.  I
> > > > just want to focus on the kernel-related issue that the strace fragment
> > > > that I posted brings up:  even if my user code gets completely screwed up
> > > > (corrupts its stack, runs out of FDs/VM/threads etc), I don't think that I
> > > > should see in the strace output that accept() has returned
> > > > ERESTARTSYS.
> > >
> > > strace always sees the raw return value, before the signal handler is
> > > executed and before the check for syscall restart is done.
> >
> > Yes, but I should see the real final return value in another strace output
> > line before I see that thread doing something else.  Correct?
>
> No.  As far as strace is concerned the syscall has finished.  Since it
> isn't restarted, you won't see it again in the trace.

Sorry for being dense, but what is the implication of your comment 
"Since it isn't restarted" ?  Are you saying that the kernel isn't 
going to restart it and will have converted it to EINTR and returned 
that to user-space, and that this modified return value is not reported 
by strace?


Phil.




--
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/