Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
So (!entryexit & regs->gprs[2] < 0) translates to the debugger changed
the
guest
system call to something illegal on the first of the two ptrace calls. So
the
patch doesn't hurt for normal, non-ptraced operation but it might hurt
other
users of ptrace.
I don't think, it hurts. If a debugger willingly sets the syscall number
to -1, what would happen without the patch?
The kernel will set the result -ENOSYS into grps[2]. So, even if trap
still indicates a syscall and a signal is pending, no syscall restarting
will be done.
With the patch, a debugger would observe changed behavior of the kernel
*only*, if it writes the syscall number to -1 on the first syscall
interception and then writes the result to ERESTARTXXXXX on the second,
while at the same time a signal is pending for the debugged process.
I assumed, that non of the current users of ptrace exactly does this.
If I'm wrong here, the patch *really* is bad.
Addendum:
To avoid any conflicts as far as possible, the -1 written and checked
as the syscall number to reset trap could be replaced by some magic
value, which then should defined in asm/ptrace.h
In terms of performance, any method, that allows to reset trap
without an additional ptrace call, is fine.
Bodo
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tell us your software development plans!
Take this survey and enter to win a one-year sub to SourceForge.net
Plus IDC's 2005 look-ahead and a copy of this survey
Click here to start! http://www.idcswdc.com/cgi-bin/survey?id=105hix
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
