On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, John Baldwin wrote: > In the linux_ptrace() function there is the following code: > > case PTRACE_GETFPXREGS: { > #ifdef CPU_ENABLE_SSE > struct proc *p; > struct thread *td2; > > ... > > /* not being traced... */ > if ((p->p_flag & P_TRACED) == 0) { > error = EPERM; > goto fail; > } > > /* not being traced by YOU */ > if (p->p_pptr != td->td_proc) { > error = EBUSY; > goto fail; > } > > /* not currently stopped */ > if ((p->p_flag & (P_TRACED|P_WAITED)) == 0) { > error = EBUSY; > goto fail; > } > > ... > > Now, since we've already checked P_TRACED above, this last > check will never fail. The diff in rev 1.3 was: > > - if (p->p_stat != SSTOP || (p->p_flag & P_WAITED) == 0) { > + if ((p->p_flag & (P_TRACED|P_WAITED)) == 0) { > > So should this be (P_STOPPED|P_WAITED) instead? Or maybe just > (P_STOPPED_TRACE|P_WAITED)? probably the 2nd option, except that I am not 100% sure without looking at the code, (which I don't have alot of time for right now) (you will sympathise more after June 4) (my Birthday BTW) that P_STOPPED_TRACE is fully implemented.. some other hands have been in there and I haven't followed what they did.. > > -- > > John Baldwin <jhb_at_FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ > "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ >Received on Mon Apr 14 2003 - 12:52:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:03 UTC