From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in 'data'
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:19:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201109101219.30942.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201109092203.10062.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
On Friday 09 September 2011 21:03:10, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2011 19:09, Pedro Alves wrote:
> No need to shout.
Sorry.
> execve is such a rare syscall the one extra stop on it is not
> going to be a problem.
>
> > And about not needing to handle the magic unadorned SIGTRAP.
> > The magic unadorned post-exec SIGTRAP does not have `status & 0xff00'
> > set, it is not a ptrace event!
>
> What SIGTRAP? With PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC, there is no SIGTRAP.
But _without_ PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC there is. You've raised its
existence as justification for needing to be able to set
options directly on PTRACE_SEIZE. Point is, if we don't get rid
of the SIGTRAP when PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC is _not_ in effect, then
_everyone_ will always pass PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC to SEIZE.
If that is true, you might as well make it default... But
I'm claiming that a tracer may not want to see exec events at
all, so making it so that when you don't specify
PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC, then you also don't get the magic SIGTRAP,
is more useful, and eliminates your justification too. Oleg already
showed it's a super trivial patch too. If you want to be
able to specify options directly on SEIZE, fine, I can see
that it is useful (of course gdb does the same "I still need to
set options on this child" dance as strace does).
> > If we don't disable the magic SIGTRAP, there's no way for a
> > tracer to do a very non-invasive SEIZE, say, a GDB mode that
> > only cares to let the tracer run free to catch SIGSEGVs
> > in some child, while later on during the run, the user remembers
> > to set a breakpoint. At that point the tracer needs to catch
> > exec events, so it'd enable TRACE_O_EVENTEXEC. Getting rid of
> > the SIGTRAP gets rid of the spurious stops when TRACE_O_EVENTEXEC
> > is not enabled.
>
> This part I don't understand.
Say, you run the whole of gcc's testsuite under gdb, and
let it run until one of the children SIGSEGVs. You do "gdb make; run".
Currently, all the children stop momentarily for fork/vfork/exec,
which slows down the run significantly (there are thousands of
forks/execs). We should be able to only SEIZE the shell that runs
"make" (gdb runs the child through the shell, like "sh -c make"),
and let all its children run free, the least invasive way possible.
When a SIGSEGV happens, gdb can sync up about the process that crashed
from /proc.
We can't get rid of the magic SIGTRAP on PTRACE_ATTACH/PTRACE_TRACEME
for backwards compatibility reasons, but SEIZE is new.
> (btw, PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC, not TRACE_O_EVENTEXEC).
Thanks.
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-10 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-08 18:22 [PATCH v3] Make PTRACE_SEIZE set ptrace options specified in 'data' Denys Vlasenko
2011-09-08 19:24 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-09-09 11:12 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-09 12:28 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-09-09 13:15 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-09 16:30 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-09-09 16:55 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-09-09 17:09 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-09 17:18 ` Oleg Nesterov
2011-09-09 20:03 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-09-10 11:19 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2011-09-10 11:40 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-09-10 12:12 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-10 15:36 ` Pedro Alves
2011-09-13 7:45 ` Indan Zupancic
2011-09-13 8:04 ` Indan Zupancic
2011-09-10 23:34 ` Tejun Heo
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=201109101219.30942.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=dvlasenk@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).