On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Petr Tesarik <ptesarik@xxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Please check the attachment! > > Petr Tesarik >
Attachment:
strace.log
Description: Binary data
![]() |