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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/17, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > OK... Yes, perhaps PTRACE_{DETACH,CONT}(SIGCONT) should override
> > SIGNAL_STOP_STOPPED too. This makes sense, and this connects to
> > the problem with SIGNAL_STOP_DEQUEUED I mentioned above.
>
> It's not at all clear this really does make sense.

Yes, I already changed my mind, see another email from me ;)

> I think this may
> reflect a (common) misunderstanding of what the SIGCONT semantics are
> (aside from ptrace).  Resuming the process is not the action of
> delivering SIGCONT.

Yes. I was confused by "for a naive/legacy debugger", somehow I missed
this doesn't work with the current code anyway, no need to add this
feature.

> So IMHO what makes most sense given what all the normal semantics are
> is that PTRACE_CONT,SIGCONT does nothing magical, and generating a
> fresh SIGCONT (i.e. kill) is the way you resume from job control stop.

Exactly.

All other things we discussed are "small details". This is the most
noticeable change.

Oleg.

--
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/