From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Tesarik Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:27:01 +0000 Subject: Re: ptrace problem with 2.6.25 on Itanium Message-Id: <1209040021.22520.25.camel@elijah.suse.cz> List-Id: References: <7c86c4470804240339p77639b4ejee73baec305d74c5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7c86c4470804240339p77639b4ejee73baec305d74c5@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 14:14 +0200, stephane eranian wrote: > Petr, > > Thanks for checking, I am pretty sure this is a problem introduced recently. > The only thing related to this that I can think of is the TIF_RESTORE_RSE > and the associated TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME. > > When I try the same test on 2.6.25: Yes, this is consistent with what I can see on 2.6.25-rc3 (which I still had lying around on the test host): glass:~/ptrace-wrong-notify # ./task_ptrace_attach ./forktest 10 10 creating 10 additional process(es) 10 iterations pid006 errno=0 exited=0 stopped=1 signaled=0 stopsig SIGSTOP from [3006] pid006 errno=0 exited=1 stopped=0 signaled=0 stopsig=0 EXITED [3006] pid005 errno=0 exited=0 stopped=1 signaled=0 stopsig=5 FORK new_pid [3006] and so on... Ok, I'm going to play with git now. ;] Petr Tesarik