On Tue, 19 Sep 2000, Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > I tested vanilla test7 with ptrace() patch. It breaks uml exactly
> > like I see with any kernel > test7.
>
> > exec_user.c:29 ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, 4901, 0, 0) = 0
> > And voila, we got SIGSEGV instead of happy running child
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I tested vanilla test7 with ptrace() patch. It breaks uml exactly
> like I see with any kernel > test7.
> exec_user.c:29 ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL, 4901, 0, 0) = 0
> And voila, we got SIGSEGV instead of happy running child:
> Child 4901 exited with signal 11
Yuri, I apol
Hello Jeff,
I tested vanilla test7 with ptrace() patch.
It breaks uml exactly like I see with any kernel > test7.
Seems like the ORIG_EAX != -1 is needed to correctly restart syscall
after PTRACE_SYSCALL, but I did not check this codepath thoroughly.
Following what is going with uml, just for
Jeff Dike wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > Beeing an active user mode linux user :-) I can say that since
> > 2.4.0-test8 (host kernel) I cannot run uml-linux successfully.
>
> > In contrast with popular feeling that "threaded programes screwed
> > signal handling on test8.", it is actually a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Beeing an active user mode linux user :-) I can say that since
> 2.4.0-test8 (host kernel) I cannot run uml-linux successfully.
> In contrast with popular feeling that "threaded programes screwed
> signal handling on test8.", it is actually a small change to arch/
> i38
5 matches
Mail list logo