Re: Q: ptrace_signal() && PTRACE_SETSIGINFO (Was: SIGSTOP && ptrace)

[Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>]

> Yes. PTRACE_SETSIGINFO can change *info if debugger wants something
> special. But then we do:
> 
> 	if (signr != info->si_signo) {
> 		info->si_signo = signr;
[...]
> Why? If the tracer changes ->exit_code it should know what it does.

If it uses PTRACE_SETSIGINFO it should know what it does, and update
the siginfo_t to match the signal it passes to PTRACE_CONT et al.

> Why do we reset *info?

PTRACE_SETSIGINFO did not always exist, and even now might not be used by a
simple-minded application.  If the user is sophisticated, it calls
PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and then passes the signal number to match.  If not, it
never calls PTRACE_SETSIGINFO at all, but expects the signal number it
chose to pass in PTRACE_CONT to behave "normally" in the tracee.  

We reset the siginfo_t the tracee will see to match what a kill() from the
debugger would have looked like.  Otherwise the tracee could be confused by
the siginfo_t values that don't make sense for the signal number delivered.
(The simple-minded debugger's ptrace code could even predate SA_SIGINFO
handlers and tracees that could see the siginfo_t.)

> But the real question, how can PTRACE_SETSIGINFO change ->si_signo
> (for example, for do_signal_stop(si_signo)) if this in fact is not
> allowed?

It's allowed.  You just have to pass the same value you set in si_signo as
the argument to PTRACE_CONT after you do PTRACE_SETSIGINFO.


Thanks,
Roland