Luming Yu wrote: >> It's definitely a bug in strace. For some reason (I don't care about) >> the execve() syscall produces an extra notification. However, this >> notification message is suppressed when SIGTRAP is blocked. This >> explains why the test case fails only when SIGTRAP is blocked. > > This is exact problem I suspected and I was trying to address in my hack.. > Since there are several processes involved in the pretty complex > ptrace scenario., > I need to capture all processes context with kdump to confirm this is > exact root-cause > for the problem. But kdump doesn't work for me..I'm trying to solve it now.. > > I'm also in doubt about the semantic correctness of the test case.. > Since SIGTRAP is so necessary to get ptrace work, is it legitimate to > block it in test case? > > One more thing I need to say is: > Same strace works for utrace enabled kernel on IA64.. If the bug is in > strace, how could it happen? No idea, but send me the strace.log file from running strace -o strace.log strace -f -o log.txt ./test1 and I may be able to tell. Petr Tesarik -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|