Re: SIGCONT misbehaviour in Linux

H. Peter Anvin (hpa@transmeta.com)
8 Dec 1999 18:20:11 -0800

Followup to: <m3bt81ndng.fsf@localhost.localnet>
By author: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@cygnus.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> writes:
>
> > That's not enough to tell what the kernel is doing, maybe they have a bit
> > smarter sleep(1) program. `sleep` can be changed to run nanosleep again if
> > it received -EINTR and `req` is not null. You only have to pass as `req`
> > the `rem` that you got back from the previous nanosleep call.
>
> I ran it under truss, you can do the same. The syscall does not return.
>

Yes, tracing a program having this effect is not acceptable. I
consider this to be a tracing problem, however. I have seen the same
thing with strace -- in fact, stracing programs that rely on SIGSTOP
is largely impossible.

-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/