[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110602051335.GC17434@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2011 14:13:35 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: vda.linux@...glemail.com, jan.kratochvil@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com,
pedro@...esourcery.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/17] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
Hey,
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 09:01:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 05/30, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > implements a new ptrace request PTRACE_SEIZE which attaches and traps
> > tracee
>
> it doesn't trap the tracee ;)
Ah, missed that one. Will update.
> > * PTRACE_SEIZE, unlike ATTACH, doesn't force tracee to trap. After
> > attaching tracee continues to run unless a trap condition occurs.
>
> OK.
>
> Just to remind, tracehook_report_clone() shouldn't send SIGSTOP if
> the auto-attached tracee is PT_SEIZED.
Yeap, let's deal with it (and others) later.
> > * If PTRACE_SEIZE'd, group stop uses PTRACE_EVENT_STOP trap which uses
> > exit_code of (SIGTRAP | PTRACE_EVENT_STOP << 8) instead of the
> > stopping signal number
>
> Hmm. May be it would be better to report stopping_signal | PTRACE_EVENT_STOP
> instead... I am not sure yet, but it seems this way we can avoid the
> PTRACE_GETSIGINFO changes. I'll try to explain later, when I finsh the
> reading.
Maybe, unsure. Currently all the existing PTRACE_EVENT_* codes use
SIGTRAP and requiring GETSIGINFO on TRAP_STOP seems reasonable enough.
So, (stopping signo) | EVENT_STOP on stops, SIGTRAP | EVENT_STOP on
INTERRUPT and SIGCONT | EVENT_STOP (hmm....) on continued?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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