[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070227122427.bf23af2f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:24:27 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: eranian@....hp.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...e.de, tony.luck@...el.com, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: debug registers and fork
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:51:54 -0800 Stephane Eranian <eranian@....hp.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have come across an issue with a monitoring using the
> hardware debug registers on ia64/i386/x86-64.
>
> It seems that the way debug registers are inherited across fork
> differs between ia-64 and i386/x86-64. On ia-64, the debug registers
> are NEVER inherited in the child. The copy_thread() routine clears
> the necessary thread flags to avoid reloading the debug registers in
> the child.
>
> Now, on x86-64, it appears that the TIF_DEBUG flag is inherited via
> setup_thread_stack(). By virtue of dup_task_struct() the debug registers
> get copied into the child task on fork. So the child has active breakpoints,
> unless I am mistaken somewhere.
>
> Given the way the ptrace() interface works, I would tend to
> think that the ia-64 way is the correct one. Any comment?
>
> Furthermore, on i386/x86-64, when switching out from a task with TIF_DEBUG
> enabled to another which does not, it seems we do not clear the debug
> registers (at least dr7) so they become inactive.
>
Let's cc Roland - he's totally rewritten ptrace and probably knows this
stuff.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists