On 01/07/2014 03:30 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > If we add the new API, perhaps we should change ptrace_resume ? > I mean, > > --- x/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ x/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -723,7 +723,9 @@ static int ptrace_resume(struct task_str > if (!valid_signal(data)) > return -EIO; > > - if (request == PTRACE_SYSCALL) > + if (request == PTRACE_SYSCALL || > + ptrace_event_enabled(PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTER) || > + ptrace_event_enabled(PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_EXIT)) > set_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE); > else > clear_tsk_thread_flag(child, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE); > > > This way PTRACE_O_SYSCALL_* will work like other ptrace options which > ask to report an event.
+10^6. With PTRACE_SYSCALL/sysgood, we don't have a way to trace syscalls when single-stepping, which isn't much of a problem for strace, but of course is for GDB. That is one of the things the new API should definitely sort out. -- Pedro Alves -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
