[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0702281847330.24215-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:01:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <eranian@....hp.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
<ak@...e.de>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
William Cohen <wcohen@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: debug registers and fork
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Roland McGrath wrote:
> It is true that debug registers are inherited by fork and clone.
> I am 99% sure that this was never specifically intended, but it
> has been this way for a long time (since 2.4 at least). It's an
> implicit consequence of the do_fork implementation style, which
> does a blind copy of the whole task_struct and then explicitly
> reinitializes some individual fields. I suppose this has some
> benefit or other, but it is very prone to new pieces of state
> getting implicitly copied without the person adding that new state
> ever consciously deciding what its inheritance semantics should be.
>
> Alan Stern is working on a revamp of the x86 debug register
> support. This is a fine opportunity to clean this area up and
> decide positively what the semantics ought to be.
Absolutely. Right now I just have a placeholder function with a note
about checking for CLONE_PTRACE. The cleanest solution, far and away,
would be to have the child process inherit no breakpoints and no debug
register values.
Alan Stern
-
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