From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denys Vlasenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace.2: Clarify PTRACE_INTERRUPT, PTRACE_LISTEN and group-stop behavior Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:49:53 +0200 Message-ID: <51C42FD1.5010407@redhat.com> References: <1371726704-23409-1-git-send-email-dvlasenk@redhat.com> <20130620142452.GA846@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130620142452.GA846-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-man-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Michael Kerrisk , Jan Kratochvil , "Dmitry V. Levin" , linux-man-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-man@vger.kernel.org On 06/20/2013 04:24 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> PTRACE_INTERRUPT (since Linux 3.4) >> Stop a tracee. >> [*MODIFIED TEXT->**] If the tracee is running in kernel space >> and PTRACE_SYSCALL is in effect, it will stop with syscall-exit-stop. > > Yes, but this looks a bit confusing. Or perhaps it is just me. > > IOW, it looks as if PTRACE_INTERRUPT has no effect in this case, the > tracee should report syscall-exit anyway. I do not know how to explain > this better... How about this? "If the tracee is running or sleeping in kernel space and PTRACE_SYSCALL is in effect, it will return from kernel and send syscall-exit-stop notification." I wonder whether we need to add that "The interrupted system call will be restarted when tracee is restarted" or this is obvious enough? > I think it makes sense to mention that a) PTRACE_INTERRUPT is only > valid if PTRACE_SEIZE was used, and b) this is the only request which > doesn't need the stopped tracee. (PTRACE_KILL should die) It is mentioned elsewhere on the man page. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html