Re: [User-mode-linux-user] Ptrace broken since 2.4.0-test8pre4?...

2000-09-21 Thread William Stearns
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

Re: [User-mode-linux-user] Ptrace broken since 2.4.0-test8pre4?...

2000-09-19 Thread Jeff Dike
[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

Re: [User-mode-linux-user] Ptrace broken since 2.4.0-test8pre4?...

2000-09-19 Thread Yuri Pudgorodsky
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

Re: [User-mode-linux-user] Ptrace broken since 2.4.0-test8pre4?...

2000-09-18 Thread Yuri Pudgorodsky
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

Re: [User-mode-linux-user] Ptrace broken since 2.4.0-test8pre4?...

2000-09-18 Thread Jeff Dike
[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