From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261197AbVAAXVC (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:21:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261198AbVAAXVC (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:21:02 -0500 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.172.17]:2787 "EHLO nevyn.them.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261197AbVAAXUz (ORCPT ); Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:20:55 -0500 Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 18:20:22 -0500 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jesse Allen , Davide Libenzi , Mike Hearn , Thomas Sailer , Eric Pouech , Roland McGrath , Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , wine-devel Subject: Re: ptrace single-stepping change breaks Wine Message-ID: <20050101232022.GA1987@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Linus Torvalds , Jesse Allen , Davide Libenzi , Mike Hearn , Thomas Sailer , Eric Pouech , Roland McGrath , Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , wine-devel References: <53046857041230112742acccbe@mail.gmail.com> <20041230230046.GA14843@nevyn.them.org> <20041231053618.GA25850@nevyn.them.org> <20041231151045.GA3405@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 09:19:48AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > Lots, I like it. The syscall trap will always be delivered before the > > single-step trap, right, because signal delivery won't run until we > > return to userspace? > > Yes. Although I've not actually tested it. > > Before, it used to show up as one event, and basically the "0x80" marker > got lost, so effectively the "system call exit" part would have got lost. > Now, it _may_ DTRT, with the caveat that the system call ptrace_notify() > thing still has the same problem with restarting-with-a-signal. > > That's basically a "don't do that then", and is the status quo, of course, > so this is at least not a regression. It's still pretty ugly, but > apparently nobody really cares ;) Yes. At some point, I'd like to make that an error - if you want to restart with a signal, don't do it from the notification points where it doesn't make sense (exit, fork, vfork-done, syscall). Send a signal by hand, and then resume, and if you want to fudge the siginfo you can do that when stopped in the signal delivery path. -- Daniel Jacobowitz