From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: FYI: fix 2 tests when glibc debuginfo is installed
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 18:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201110251912.26857.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111025173249.GA23231@redhat.com>
On Tuesday 25 October 2011 18:32:49, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/25, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Thanks. Okay, so I take it what really happens is that PTRACE_ATTACH no
> > longer messes with job control,
>
> Well, PTRACE_ATTACH was not really changed in this sense.
Ah, okay.
> And it still sends SIGSTOP. You can use PTRACE_SEIZE.
That I know. :-) I was trying to understand what happens
to older gdb's on new kernels, and, if gdb needs to adapt,
and if it needs to detect whether what "flavor" of
PTRACE_ATTACH|DETACH it is talking to.
> But I guess this is off-topic,
> > and that gdb will have to
> > `kill -SIGCONT' the inferior itself if it wants e.g., inferior
> > function calls to work after attaching to a stopped process
>
> Why? PTRACE_CONT/etc should work. The tracee will be resumed, stopped
> or not.
Eh, well, I read some discussions from earlier this year on
lkml proposing that, and I guess I got confused.
> But, compared to the old kernels, the tracee "remembers" the
> fact it was stopped, and it will stop again after DETACH. Unless SIGCONT
> in between.
What about PTRACE_CONT in between (no SIGCONT)? Does it make the
kernel "forget" the fact that the child was stopped before?
If not, what happens if the ptracer dies while its child
is PTRACE_CONT'ed, and the child was stopped at PTRACE_ATTACH time?
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-25 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-14 16:05 Tom Tromey
2011-10-14 19:37 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-14 21:19 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-14 21:25 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-10-14 21:42 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-15 14:52 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-10-25 17:03 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-25 17:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-10-25 18:16 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2011-10-25 18:38 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-10-25 19:50 ` Pedro Alves
2011-10-16 16:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
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=201110251912.26857.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tromey@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