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

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:38:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > If I do (on kernel-debug-2.6.35.11-83.fc14.x86_64)
> > 	ptrace (PTRACE_ATTACH);
> > 	sleep (1);
> > 	ptrace (PTRACE_DETACH, 0);
> >
> > even without the wait() it really has no effect.
> 
> Well. what does this "has no effect" mean? ;) I am totally confused.
> We were talking about the case when the tracee was stopped before
> attach, right?

No, the case it is not `(T) stopped'.  I was surprised by this ptrace behavior
but it is offtopic and not useful so let's drop it.


> So. So far I assume you are not against this change ;)

No, although you should provide the patch in advance, it would be nice to also
post it first to <gdb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for comments.

Now if new GDB should allow inferior functions calls on previously
`(T) stopped' process doing PTRACE_CONT(SIGCONT) for executing the call should
be harmless but how to make it `(T) stopped' afterwards?  PTRACE_CONT(SIGSTOP)
right after the inferior call will make the old kernels run the inferior - we
do not want that.  GDB can only wait till the end of debugging session and do
PTRACE_DETACH(SIGSTOP).  But we are back at the point if GDB crashes in
between the inferior will accidentally resume.

(This is the ``(T) stopped' preservation after _exit()' thread along claimed
to be unrelated.)


Thanks,
Jan
--
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/