On 02/09/2012 04:17 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 12:48:26PM -0800, Dmitry Mikulin wrote: >>> The semantic of PL_FLAG_EXEC up until now is very simple: it indicates >>> that current stop occured during the first return to usermode after >>> successful exec. The proposed patch breaks the semantic, because now >>> some stops which satisfy the stated condition are no longer marked with >>> the flag. >>> >>> That said, I am lost. You stated that you still need some stops at >>> exec even when not PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is requested. Why usermode cannot >>> remember whether the PT_FOLLOW_EXEC was set for the process, and ignore >>> PL_FLAG_EXEC if not requested ? >> I was trying to avoid making ugly changes in gdb if it was possible not to >> make ugly changes in the kernel. I changed gdb to work without >> PT_FOLLOW_EXEC. > So, does the patch below helps you, or did I missed something again ? It works, but I managed to make gdb work without it. So, PT_FOLLOW_EXEC is not needed now. Sorry for the confusion.Received on Fri Feb 10 2012 - 00:55:46 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:23 UTC