From: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: parsic/sh/sparc tracehook breakage when tracing signals
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:07:25 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100212030725.B6D6DC81B@magilla.sf.frob.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Mike Frysinger's message of Thursday, 11 February 2010 19:10:47 -0500 <201002111910.50596.vapier@gentoo.org>
> when i ported the Blackfin code to the tracehook framework, i copied a latent
> bug from the sparc port. trying to trace another process while handling
> signals no longer worked (and subsequently broke some of the gdb tests).
What you mean is that single-step into a signal handler fails to stop at
the first instruction of the handler. (Instead it stops after the first
instruction in the handler's prologue.)
> this was due to calling tracehook_signal_handler() with the last argument
> (stepping) always as 0. if we look at the definition of this function in
> linux/tracehook.h, we see that calling the function stepping=0 is pointless:
> if (stepping)
> ptrace_notify(SIGTRAP);
Indeed, it doesn't do anything else right now. But the reason to call it
regardless is so that every arch is consistent in telling the generic code
what is going on. If we add a future feature to ptrace (or something else)
to track signal handler setups, that feature may very well not be one that
fires only when single-step is in use. An arch that is set up now to call
tracehook_signal_handler() exactly as that function's kerneldoc says to do
will be prepared for such things to work without later arch changes.
> after Roland pointed out some more stuff, i went back and looked at all the
> tracehook arches in the tree. it seems like these arches are all broken in
> the same way:
> parisc (arch/parisc/kernel/signal.c)
> SuperH (64bit only) (arch/sh/kernel/signal_64.c)
> Sparc (all bits) (arch/sparc/kernel/signal{_32,32,_64}.c)
>
> seems like you guys should just change the last argument to:
> test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP)
Whether there is a TIF_SINGLESTEP and what it means is arch-specific.
If arch_has_single_step(), then the argument should be nonzero if
user_enable_single_step() is in force at the time of handler setup.
In parisc, it should test for either TIF_SINGLESTEP or TIF_BLOCKSTEP.
In sh, going from what signal_32.c does, it should indeed do as you say.
In sparc, arch_has_single_step()==0, so there is nothing to do.
Thanks,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-12 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-12 0:10 Mike Frysinger
2010-02-12 0:39 ` David Miller
2010-02-12 0:56 ` Mike Frysinger
2010-02-12 3:07 ` Roland McGrath [this message]
2010-02-12 15:09 ` Kyle McMartin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100212030725.B6D6DC81B@magilla.sf.frob.com \
--to=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sparclinux@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®