Re: [PATCH 1/1] ptrace: make sure do_wait() won't hang after PTRACE_ATTACH

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/14, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 02/13, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>> >>
>> >> $ strace -tt sleep 30
>> >> 23:02:15.619262 execve("/bin/sleep", ["sleep", "30"], [/* 30 vars */]) = 0
>> >> ...
>> >> 23:02:15.622112 nanosleep({30, 0}, NULL) = ? ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK (To be restarted)
>> >> 23:02:23.781165 --- SIGSTOP (Stopped (signal)) @ 0 (0) ---
>> >> 23:02:23.781251 --- SIGSTOP (Stopped (signal)) @ 0 (0) ---
>> >>     (I forgot again why we see it twice. Another quirk I guess...)
>> >
>> >      (this is correct, the tracee reports the signal=SIGSTOP, then
>> >       it reports it actually stopps with exit_code=SIGSTOP)
>>
>> Ah, I see. Is there any way debugger can distinguish between these two
>> different stops?
>
> IIRC, the (only?) way to distinguish is to check last_siginfo != NULL
> via ptrace(PTRACE_GETSIGINFO).

What do you think strace needs to do when it sees second SIGSTOP
(meaning "in theory", not "on current kernel which may be buggy")?

ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, $PID, 0x1, 0)?
nothing?
something else?

-- 
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/