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

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 21:38:19 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > 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.

OK.

> Now if new GDB should allow inferior functions calls on previously
> `(T) stopped' process doing PTRACE_CONT(SIGCONT)

No, no, this won't work. You need to send SIGCONT via kill/tkill. Once
again, we can add the special case for PTRACE_CONT(SIGCONT), but please
look at Roland's comment: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=129796917823181

And given that currently gdb does PTRACE_CONT(0) this special case can't
help anyway unless you change gdb.

> 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.

Hmm... probably I am totally confused... but PTRACE_CONT(SIGSTOP)
should work in this case, the tracee reports SIGTRAP after the single-step
(if I understand correctly how gdb implements this).

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/