On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:01:56PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Tue, 2011-08-02 at 01:45 +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 11:34:23AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: [...] > > > I need to look in the past to figure out why we even do it. > > > First guess is that it's a workaround for old kernel bugs. > > > > How old those buggy kernels might be? > > The internal_exit function, whose reason for existence is to > support "detach on exit" behavior, is from 1995. > > I tried to test whether this is still needed on kernel 2.4.20, > but this kernel oopses (somewhere in ptrace_check_attach).
I tried to test current strace with linux-2.4.32-ow1 from ftp://ftp.openwall.com/pub/Owl/2.0-release/iso/Owl-2.0-release-i386.iso.gz where PTRACE_SETOPTIONS are certainly not supported, and found out that test_ptrace_setoptions_followfork() fails to wait for all child processes it generates, resulting to an unexpected wait failure later in test_ptrace_setoptions_for_all(). I've just pushed a fix to http://strace.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=strace/strace;a=commitdiff;h=ldv/PTRACE_SETOPTIONS-tests please have a look. With the fix, at least simple strace -f test works on linux-2.4.32. There are no kernel oopses there, but ./strace -f ./test/childthread outputs something different from expected. > Do you think it would be better if we recommend users of > 2.4 kernels to simply stick with older strace versions? Do we have an alternative choice now? -- ldv
pgpvO2a1rylqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a FREE DOWNLOAD! and learn more about uberSVN rich system, user administration capabilities and model configuration. Take the hassle out of deploying and managing Subversion and the tools developers use with it. http://p.sf.net/sfu/wandisco-d2d-2
_______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
