On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:13:06PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 10/24, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote: > > > > Thinking further on this, in the normal 'running gdb on a core' case, we > > won't have this problem, as the binary that we point gdb to, will be a > > pristine one, without the uprobe int3s, right? > > Not sure I understand. > > I meant, if we have a binary with uprobes (iow, register_uprobe() installed > uprobes into that file), then gdb will see int3's with or without the core. > Or you can add uprobe into glibc, say you can probe getpid(). Now (again, > with or without the core) disassemble shows that getpid() starts with int3. > > But I guess you meant something else... No, you are right... my inference was wrong. On a core with a uprobe with an explicit raise(SIGABRT) does show the breakpoint. (gdb) disassemble start_thread2 Dump of assembler code for function start_thread2: 0x0000000000400831 <+0>: int3 0x0000000000400832 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp 0x0000000000400835 <+4>: sub $0x10,%rsp 0x0000000000400839 <+8>: mov %rdi,-0x8(%rbp) 0x000000000040083d <+12>: callq 0x400650 <getpid@plt> Now, I guess we need to agree on what is the acceptable behavior in the uprobes case. What's your suggestion? Ananth -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>