Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>,
	aurelien.chanudet@enst.fr, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: process attaching gdb to itself
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:30:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030929132631.GA17873@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3F7831F3.6010203@redhat.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 09:21:55AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>works on BSD but fails on GNU/Linux.  When doing an attach, BSD always 
> >>generates something for wait4 to consume. GNU/Linux does not, leaving 
> >>GDB stuck in wait4 :-(
> >
> >
> >Yes, I've known about this problem for a long time.  We've [I, Roland,
> 
> This explains something.

I beg your pardon?

> >a couple of other people I can't recall] talked about changing it and
> >decided that, really, the current behavior makes more sense.
> 
> Not to me.
> 
> GDB sends a message to the kernel asking for the process to stop.  The 
> kernel sends a message back indicating that the request has completed.

The kernel generates a message at each change of the program's state. 
It isn't changing state; it was already stopped.  This behavior allows
the debugger to determine if the program was stopped before attach; I
can easily picture a multi-threaded daemon design that leaves parts of
itself SIGSTOP'd and would get confused if unexpectedly wakened.

> >It's not at all hard to make GDB work in the current system anyway. 
> >Just have to do it.  It goes something like:
> >  - attach
> >  - wait4 WNOHANG, break if succeeds (optimistic, not necessary)
> >  - check in /proc to make sure the process is in a stopped state
> >    - If it was:
> >      - wait4 WNOHANG
> >        - If we get a status, then the process was running when we attached
> >        - If no status is available then the process was stopped when
> >          we attached
> >    - If it wasn't:
> >      - The process was running when we attached and hasn't stopped yet
> >      - wait4 without WNOHANG
> 
> I feel ill.  What happens, for instance, if /proc isn't there?

At this point in its life, Linux can just assume the /proc filesystem
is available.  Linus has repeatedly refused to duplicate information
available via /proc through another interface.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2003-09-29 13:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-09-28 22:35 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-09-28 22:45 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-29  2:21   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-09-29 13:23     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-29 13:30       ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-09-29 14:54         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-09-29 14:59           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-09-28 20:45 Aurelien Chanudet

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=20030929132631.GA17873@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=aurelien.chanudet@enst.fr \
    --cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=mec@shout.net \
    /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