From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Ananth Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@in.ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com
Subject: [RFC,PATCH 05/14] ptrace: change tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to handle stepping
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:01:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091124200145.GA5779@redhat.com> (raw)
(already in mm: ptrace-change-tracehook_report_syscall_exit-to-handle-stepping.patch)
Suggested by Roland.
Change tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to look at step flag and send
the trap signal if needed.
This change affects ia64, microblaze, parisc, powerpc, sh. They pass
nonzero "step" argument to tracehook but since it was ignored the tracee
reports via ptrace_notify(), this is not right and not consistent.
- PTRACE_SETSIGINFO doesn't work
- if the tracer resumes the tracee with signr != 0 the new signal
is generated rather than delivering it
- If PT_TRACESYSGOOD is set the tracee reports the wrong exit_code
I don't have a powerpc machine, but I think this test-case should
see the difference:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/ptrace.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int pid, status;
if (!(pid = fork())) {
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME) == 0);
kill(getpid(), SIGSTOP);
getppid();
return 0;
}
assert(pid == wait(&status));
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS, pid, 0, PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD) == 0);
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, pid, 0,0) == 0);
assert(pid == wait(&status));
assert(ptrace(PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, pid, 0,0) == 0);
assert(pid == wait(&status));
if (status == 0x57F)
return 0;
printf("kernel bug: status=%X shouldn't have 0x80\n", status);
return 1;
}
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
---
include/linux/tracehook.h | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
--- V1/include/linux/tracehook.h~5_TRACEHOOK_HANDLE_STEPPING 2009-11-24 19:46:49.000000000 +0100
+++ V1/include/linux/tracehook.h 2009-11-24 19:52:10.000000000 +0100
@@ -134,6 +134,13 @@ static inline __must_check int tracehook
*/
static inline void tracehook_report_syscall_exit(struct pt_regs *regs, int step)
{
+ if (step) {
+ siginfo_t info;
+ user_single_step_siginfo(current, regs, &info);
+ force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
+ return;
+ }
+
ptrace_report_syscall(regs);
}
reply other threads:[~2009-11-24 20:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
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=20091124200145.GA5779@redhat.com \
--to=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=ananth@in.ibm.com \
--cc=fche@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=utrace-devel@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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.