On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > - you couldn't even debug signal handlers, because they were _really_
> >hard to get into unless you knew where they were and put a breakpoint
> >on them.
>
> Ok I see this as being a problem. But I bet it could be fixed
> much simpler without
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > I think same. My test simply let the function processing to let thru and
> > reach the fake signal sending point.
>
> No, your test-case doesn't even send a si
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > .. no, I see what's up. System call returns _are_ special for
> > single-stepping. I'll think about it..
>
> Ok, I think I know what's up.
>
> It's literally the bogus fake signal that do_syscall_tr
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Will test whether it cleanly handles your test-case. Davide - you also
> added the TIF_SINGLESTEP flag to that _TIF_WORK_MASK, can you explain
> that?
I honestly do not remember, but I think is wrong and can be removed.
That's not the problem though
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > I think same. My test simply let the function processing to let thru and
> > reach the fake signal sending point.
>
> No, your test-case doesn't even send a si
erstand why do_syscall_trace() does that
> TIF_SINGLESTEP test in the first place, since the ptrace_notify() should
> happen as part of the _normal_ TIF_SINGLESTEP handling, afaiks. No
> apparent need to do it in syscall tracing, and do_syscall_trace() does
> that bogus fake signal sending
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, how about this patch?
>
> It does basically two things:
>
> - it makes the x86 version of ptrace be a lot more careful about the TF
>bit in eflags, and in particular it never touches it _unless_ the
>tracer has explicitly asked for it (
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 01:53:38PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > I'm getting the feeling that the question of whether to step into
> > signal handlers is orthogonal to single-stepping; maybe it should be a
> > separate ptrace operation.
>
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >
> > Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Now, try to "strace" it, or debug it with gdb, and see if you can repeat
> > > the behaviour.
> >
> > You'll always have hard time repeating that
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> void handler(int signo)
> {
> extern char smc;
> smc++;
> }
>
> asm volatile("\nsmc:\n\t"
> ".byte 0xb7\n\t"
> ".long function"
>
10 matches
Mail list logo
