On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:36:33 +0100 Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 01/05, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:11:47 -0800 (PST) > > Roland McGrath <roland@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > This probably means that copy_process()->user_disable_single_step() > > > > is not enough to clear the "this task wants single-stepping" copied > > > > from parent. > > > > > > I would suspect s390's TIF_SINGLE_STEP flag here. That flag means "a > > > single-step trap occurred". This is what causes do_single_step to be > > > called before returning to user mode, rather than the machine trap doing it > > > directly as is done in the other arch implementations. > > > > Just my thinking as well. > > Oh, I am not sure. But I don't understand TIF_SINGLE_STEP on s390, > absolutely. > > For example, why do_signal() sets TIF_SINGLE_STEP? Why can't we do > > --- a/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c > @@ -500,18 +500,10 @@ void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs) > clear_thread_flag(TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK); > > /* > - * If we would have taken a single-step trap > - * for a normal instruction, act like we took > - * one for the handler setup. > - */ > - if (current->thread.per_info.single_step) > - set_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP); > - > - /* > * Let tracing know that we've done the handler setup. > */ > tracehook_signal_handler(signr, &info, &ka, regs, > - test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP)); > + current->thread.per_info.single_step); > } > return; > } > > ? The reason why we set the TIF_SINGLE_STEP bit in do_signal is that we want to be able to stop the debugged program before the first instruction of the signal handler has been executed. The PER single step causes a trap after an instruction has been executed. That first instruction can do bad things to the arguments of the signal handler.. > Apart from arch/s390/signal.c, TIF_SINGLE_STEP is used by entry.S > but I don't understand this asm at all. > > Anyway. I modified the debugging patch a bit: > > --- K/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c~ 2009-12-22 10:41:52.909174198 -0500 > +++ K/arch/s390/kernel/traps.c 2010-01-05 09:49:19.541792379 -0500 > @@ -384,6 +384,8 @@ void __kprobes do_single_step(struct pt_ > } > if (tracehook_consider_fatal_signal(current, SIGTRAP)) > force_sig(SIGTRAP, current); > + else > + printk("XXX: %d %d\n", current->pid, test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP)); > } > > static void default_trap_handler(struct pt_regs * regs, long interruption_code) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Now, when I run this test-case > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <unistd.h> > #include <signal.h> > #include <sys/ptrace.h> > #include <sys/wait.h> > #include <assert.h> > > int main(void) > { > int pid, status; > > if (!(pid = fork())) { > assert(ptrace(PTRACE_TRACEME) == 0); > kill(getpid(), SIGSTOP); > > if (!fork()) > return 43; > > wait(&status); > return WEXITSTATUS(status); > } > > > for (;;) { > assert(pid == wait(&status)); > if (WIFEXITED(status)) > break; > assert(ptrace(PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, pid, 0,0) == 0); > } > > assert(WEXITSTATUS(status) == 43); > return 0; > } > > dmesg shows 799 lines of > > XXX: 2389 0 > > > The kernel is 2.6.32.2 + utrace, but CONFIG_UTRACE is not set. With or without my bug fix ? -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html