From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261711AbUKTVrl (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:47:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261718AbUKTVrk (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:47:40 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:28615 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261711AbUKTVrh (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2004 16:47:37 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:49:15 -0700 From: Jesse Allen To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Eric Pouech , Roland McGrath , Mike Hearn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , wine-devel Subject: Re: ptrace single-stepping change breaks Wine Message-ID: <20041120214915.GA6100@tesore.ph.cox.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jesse Allen , Linus Torvalds , Daniel Jacobowitz , Eric Pouech , Roland McGrath , Mike Hearn , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , wine-devel References: <200411152253.iAFMr8JL030601@magilla.sf.frob.com> <419E42B3.8070901@wanadoo.fr> <419E4A76.8020909@wanadoo.fr> <419E5A88.1050701@wanadoo.fr> <20041119212327.GA8121@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. > > I really don't see why. If a controlling process is asking for > single-stepping, then it damn well should get it. It it doesn't want to > single-step through a signal handler, then it could decide to just put a > breakpoint on the return point (possibly by modifying the signal handler > save area). > > It's not like single-stepping into the signal handler in any way removes > any information (while _not_ single-stepping into it clearly does). > > With the patch I just posted (assuming it works for people), Wine should > at least have the choice. The behaviour now should be: > > - if the app sets TF on its own, it will cause a SIGTRAP which it can > catch. > - if the debugger sets TF with SINGLESTEP, it will single-step into a > signal handler. > - it the app sets TF _and_ you ptrace it, you the ptracer will see the > debug event and catch it. However, doing a "continue" at that point > will remove the TF flag (and always has), the app will normally then > never see the trap. You can do a "signal SIGTRAP" to actually force > the trap handler to tun, but that one won't actually single-step (it's > a "continue" in all other senses). > > It sounds like the third case is what wine wants. > > Linus So an app running through wine could set TF on it's own? It would be a good idea to find out what it is doing in the first place. There has to be a reason why War3 is so picky after the original change was introduced and a reason why the latest changes don't seem to fix it. I've built a kernel 2.6.10-rc2 with the new ptrace patch. The program still says "please insert disc". I haven't been able to get winedbg to tell me anything useful -- the program never crashes anyways. So I went ahead and I captured a debug log. the command: WINEDEBUG=+all wine war3/Warcraft\ III.exe -opengl >& war3_and_2.6.10-rc2.log I scanned for the part right before it calls up to display the error. I found that after loading advapi32.dll, the thread 000c creates a mutex and wakes up 000a. Then 000c gets killed and right after that starts calling up the resources for the "insert disc" message box. I put the log up on my ftp, and the interesting part in a seperate file: ftp://resnet.dnip.net/ Any clue on what may be happening here? Or maybe another idea on where else to search? Jesse