On 06/21, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On 06/20/2013 04:24 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > >> PTRACE_INTERRUPT (since Linux 3.4) > >> Stop a tracee. > >> [*MODIFIED TEXT->**] If the tracee is running in kernel space > >> and PTRACE_SYSCALL is in effect, it will stop with syscall-exit-stop. > > > > Yes, but this looks a bit confusing. Or perhaps it is just me. > > > > IOW, it looks as if PTRACE_INTERRUPT has no effect in this case, the > > tracee should report syscall-exit anyway. I do not know how to explain > > this better... > > How about this? > > "If the tracee is running or sleeping in kernel space > and PTRACE_SYSCALL is in effect, it will return from kernel > and send syscall-exit-stop notification." Yes, perhaps... but see below. > I wonder whether we need to add that "The interrupted system call > will be restarted when tracee is restarted" or this is obvious > enough? Yes... but once again, if we document the fact that PTRACE_INTERRUPT sends the fake signal, then we do not need to specially mention restart of syscall-exit-stop notification above. Just we should explain that, unless the trace has another event to report, this fake signal results in PTRACE_EVENT_STOP(SIGTRAP). > > I think it makes sense to mention that a) PTRACE_INTERRUPT is only > > valid if PTRACE_SEIZE was used, and b) this is the only request which > > doesn't need the stopped tracee. (PTRACE_KILL should die) > > It is mentioned elsewhere on the man page. Ah, OK, thanks. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
