From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix Linux attach to signalled/stopped processes
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:30:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200706271601.l5RG1KoT030784@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070627065203.GA9427@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> (message from Jan Kratochvil on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:52:03 +0200)
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:52:03 +0200
> From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:54:54 +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> ...
> > This is what I get on OpenBSD:
> >
> > $ ./ptrace-test
> > .assertion "!WIFSIGNALED (status)" failed: file "ptrace-test.c", line 122, function "main"
> > Abort trap (core dumped)
> >
> > This is sort of odd,
>
> Thanks for the test - it is now confirmed the code is not crossplatform and
> different hacks may be needed on different ptrace(2)-using OSes.
> OK, going to move it to linux-nat.c.
>
> > but then your test program has a serious problem.
> > It doesn't wait(2) after ptrace(PT_ATTACH, ...). That's asking for trouble.
>
> It does wait(2) right after a preventive `PT_CONT (SIGSTOP)' as otherwise
> wait(2) would hang if the original process was already stopped ...
That's a kernel bug in my book; wait(2) should always report a SIGSTOP
after a PT_ATTACH as soon as the traced process has been stopped. If
the process was already stopped, wait(2) should simply report that
SIGSTOP immediately.
> > > How does currently GDB behave there while attaching to a SIGSTOPped process?
> >
> > I don't think it matters whether the process is stopped or not.
>
> ... the same way the current GDB hangs. SIGSTOP is already delivered before
> and the new SIGSTOP from PTRACE_ATTACH does not stack as SIGSTOP is already
> active. If the original SIGSTOP was already wait(2)ed by the pre-ptrace(2)
> parent the new ptrace(2)-parent (the debugger) will not get the new SIGSTOP
> caught and thus wait(2) hangs for it.
> [ Info originally from Roland McGrath. ]
So it seems that Linux completely ignores SIGSTOP if a process is
already stopped. That's the right thing to do for "normal" processes,
but not ok for traced processes. Looks like fixing that would solve a
lot of problems. Wouldn't surprise me if that would also make lots of
the workarounds we put in for debugging multi-threaded programs
unnecessary.
Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-27 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-06 14:34 Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-11 13:44 ` Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-15 18:02 ` Mark Kettenis
2007-06-26 22:40 ` Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-27 0:13 ` Mark Kettenis
2007-06-27 11:59 ` Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-27 18:30 ` Mark Kettenis [this message]
2007-06-30 11:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-30 11:57 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-06-30 17:15 ` Jan Kratochvil
2007-06-30 18:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
[not found] ` <200706301852.l5UIq8ek010536@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
2007-07-01 3:17 ` Eli Zaretskii
2007-07-01 9:34 ` Mark Kettenis
2007-07-01 10:03 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-03-31 22:07 Doug Evans
2008-04-02 0:01 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-04-02 0:07 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-10 15:30 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-10 15:37 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-04-10 15:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-10 16:00 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-04-10 19:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-10 15:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-10 16:00 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-04-10 19:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-11 8:46 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-11 17:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-04-11 19:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-12 7:58 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-14 15:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-14 15:31 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-15 22:14 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-05-01 18:50 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-07-05 8:48 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-07-05 13:48 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-09-24 12:46 ` Andreas Schwab
2008-09-26 3:52 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-09-26 13:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-09-28 11:43 ` Jan Kratochvil
2008-09-28 14:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-15 8:14 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-15 13:02 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-16 7:01 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-11 22:20 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-11 22:21 ` Pedro Alves
2008-04-11 22:25 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-04-12 0:02 ` Pedro Alves
2008-04-12 0:19 ` Pedro Alves
2008-04-13 9:35 ` Pedro Alves
2008-04-13 13:40 ` Pedro Alves
2008-04-12 16:38 ` Roland McGrath
2008-04-12 16:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
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=200706271601.l5RG1KoT030784@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl \
--to=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@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