On Thu, January 26, 2012 11:40, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Jamie Lokier <jamie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Indan Zupancic wrote: >>> On Thu, January 26, 2012 02:08, Jamie Lokier wrote: >>> > Is it disambiguated by PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC happening before the execve >>> > returns, and you knowing the TID always changes to the PID? �I haven't >>> > yet checked which TID gets the PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC event, but if it's >>> > not the old one, perhaps that could be changed. >>> >>> Please don't ever change the behaviour of PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, it's >>> barely documented already, but if if ever changes it will be also >>> unreliable. >>> >>> It's still unclear if the PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC comes before or after >>> or instead of the post-execve ptrace event. > > Denis <- confused. > Was ist das "post-execve ptrace event"? I know no such thing. > I know about PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, and "post-execve SIGTRAP". I mean the second SIGTRAP | 0x80 event, the syscall return of execve. > All ptrace stops (events and other stops) are synchronous. > Tracee stops, tracer notices it, tracer restarts tracee, > and only after this tracee can generate next event. > Therefore ptrace stops can't get reordered. That's good to know and what I expected. Since which kernel version does the PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG work and is there a way to find out before it returns zero? Greetings, Indan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
