From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127317 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2015 18:09:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 127301 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2015 18:09:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:09:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61F27C0BE065 for ; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 18:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t99I942P025017; Fri, 9 Oct 2015 14:09:05 -0400 Message-ID: <561802C0.8060902@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:09:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Stone , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: sergiodj@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Improve syscall entry/return tracking on Linux References: <1444353736-14451-1-git-send-email-jistone@redhat.com> <56179B68.80200@redhat.com> <5617FFF8.50905@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5617FFF8.50905@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 On 10/09/2015 06:57 PM, Josh Stone wrote: > On 10/09/2015 03:48 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> no-mmu / uclinux systems don't have fork. I'm not sure whether >> fork returns ENOSYS or SYS_fork isn't even defined there. >> Maybe just switch to vfork so we can keep catch syscall >> coverage on those systems? > > In kernel/fork.c I see that lacking CONFIG_MMU returns EINVAL. > > But it appears a few archs don't implement fork/vfork syscalls at all, > only clone. Ah, yeah. Even on x86 glibc doesn't really implement fork with the fork syscall. > Maybe I should use CLONE_VFORK for broadest coverage? That does sound the best. Thanks, Pedro Alves