[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140110135802.GA26953@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 14:58:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Tom Tromey <tromey@...hat.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Implement new PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_{ENTER,EXIT}
On 01/09, Pedro Alves wrote:
>
> On 01/07/2014 03:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > This way PTRACE_O_SYSCALL_* will work like other ptrace options which
> > ask to report an event.
>
> +10^6. With PTRACE_SYSCALL/sysgood, we don't have a way to trace
> syscalls when single-stepping, which isn't much of a problem for
> strace, but of course is for GDB. That is one of the things the
> new API should definitely sort out.
Hmm. I think this is a good point, but this needs more discussion.
So suppose that gdb does ptrace(PTRACE_SINGLESTEP) and the tracee
executes the "syscall" insn. What it should report?
syscall-entry looks obvious, PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTER should be
reported if PTRACE_O_SYSCALL_ENTER was set.
But what should syscall-exit do? Should it still report SIGSEGV as
it currently does, or should it report _SYSCALL_EXIT instead (if
PTRACE_O_SYSCALL_EXIT of course), or should it report both?
Oleg.
--
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