From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: [patch] Fix threads vs. fork following
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040322202041.GA18765@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040322171217.GA23193@nevyn.them.org>
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 12:12:18PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 01:08:40AM +0000, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Hey Daniel,
> >
> > Got a question concerning the code in
> > linux-nat.c::linux_handle_extended_wait.
> >
> > You've got a PTRACE_EVENT_FORK event, and now you're going to call
> > waitpid. You pull a pid out of a list of stopped pids, and wait for
> > it using waitpid. In your comment, you explain that you don't have to
> > worry about the pid being a clone, because you didn't ask for pids in
> > the event mask.
> >
> > But how is this affected by threads, especially NPTL threads?
> > I've got a fairly simple test-case (modified from pthreads.c,
> > I'll attach it), in which a child thread calls fork -- but gdb
> > apparently tries to wait on the main thread (or perhaps the most
> > recent event thread). Since that's not the thread that called
> > fork, waitpid returns -1 with "no child". Gdb reports:
> > waiting for new child: No child processes.
> >
> > FWIW, I've tried this on both a single-processor and an SMP machine.
Here's what happened: I was using ptid_get_pid, which gave me the
_process_ ID rather than the _lwp_ ID. I've committed this fix for
HEAD. Should I fix this on the 6.1 branch also?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
2004-03-22 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
* lin-lwp.c (lin_lwp_wait): Pass the LWP ID to
linux_handle_extended_wait.
Index: lin-lwp.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/lin-lwp.c,v
retrieving revision 1.52
diff -u -p -r1.52 lin-lwp.c
--- lin-lwp.c 8 Oct 2003 20:05:56 -0000 1.52
+++ lin-lwp.c 22 Mar 2004 20:02:30 -0000
@@ -1591,8 +1591,7 @@ retry:
/* Handle GNU/Linux's extended waitstatus for trace events. */
if (WIFSTOPPED (status) && WSTOPSIG (status) == SIGTRAP && status >> 16 != 0)
{
- linux_handle_extended_wait (ptid_get_pid (trap_ptid),
- status, ourstatus);
+ linux_handle_extended_wait (GET_LWP (lp->ptid), status, ourstatus);
return trap_ptid;
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-03-22 20:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-11 1:08 Daniel, thread vs. fork question Michael Snyder
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-11 1:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-11 2:22 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-19 19:29 ` Michael Snyder
2004-03-19 19:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-22 17:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-03-22 20:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-03-23 20:17 ` [patch] Fix threads vs. fork following Michael Snyder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040322202041.GA18765@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox