From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86 single-step (TF) vs system calls & traps
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 16:34:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040701203455.GA22888@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200407010747.i617lxIB019894@magilla.sf.frob.com>
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 12:47:59AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Roland, I don't think (pretty sure actually ;) we can handle the case
> > where TF is set from userspace and, at the same time, the user uses
> > PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.
>
> I don't know where you pulled the notion of that case from. I certainly
> never mentioned it. When I raised the case of user-mode setting of TF, I
> was quite clear that it's a case when ptrace is not involved.
>
> > The PTRACE_SINGLESTEP gives you the SYSGOOD behaviour, if you set it. And
> > sends a SIGTRAP notification to the ptrace'ing parent process.
>
> Like I said before, that is a change in the behavior. Since its inception,
> SYSGOOD has meant exactly and only that when you use PTRACE_SYSCALL you
> will get a different notification for a syscall-tracing stop than other
> sources of SIGTRAP that may arise during execution of user code between
> system calls. At no time ever before, has it been possible to get the
> SIGTRAP|0x80 wait result when you had not just called PTRACE_SYSCALL.
> After your change, calling PTRACE_SINGLESTEP can now produce that result.
> I don't think that change is a good thing.
>
> As the originator of the SYSGOOD option, Dan might have a comment about this.
I am not the originator of PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD, I just had the bad
luck to touch it.
I think reporting the system call using 0x80|SIGTRAP when you
PTRACE_SINGLESTEP over the trap instruction makes excellent good sense.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-01 20:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-29 1:55 [RFC PATCH] x86 single-step (TF) vs system calls & traps Roland McGrath
2004-06-29 2:05 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-06-29 3:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-06-29 3:46 ` Roland McGrath
2004-06-29 3:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-06-29 4:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-06-29 4:37 ` Roland McGrath
2004-06-29 7:00 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-07-01 7:47 ` Roland McGrath
2004-07-01 15:14 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-07-01 20:24 ` Roland McGrath
2004-07-01 21:47 ` Davide Libenzi
2004-07-01 20:34 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2004-07-01 21:59 ` Roland McGrath
2004-07-02 4:22 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-06-29 4:32 ` Roland McGrath
2004-06-29 5:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2004-07-01 8:09 ` Roland McGrath
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=20040701203455.GA22888@nevyn.them.org \
--to=dan@debian.org \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=cagney@redhat.com \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/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