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

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:23:25 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 02/20, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > 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.

I would better play with a patched kernel.


> > 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).

The inferior call returns to a breakpoint (0xcc), this is the reason of the
SIGTRAP at the end.  I expect PTRACE_CONT(SIGSTOP) could work even in such
case.


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/