Change ptrace_report_signal() to handle UTRACE_SIGNAL_HANDLER case
correctly: just push the new stop event if the tracer wants stepping.
We do not set context->siginfo = info, this would be wrong because
we do not report a signal. I wonder how the tracer can distinguish
this case from the real SIGTRAP.
>From now, compared to the vanilla kernel, we fail 2 tests:
attach-wait-on-stopped - this is correct, it should fail,
ptrace_detach() doesn't do the unconditional wakeup.
attach-into-signal - this is understandable. This test
assumes that after ptrace(DETACH, sig) the next attach
should not see this signal. I wonder if we should try hard
to keep this behaviour, this doesn't look very useful to me.
This is sad, because this just means we don't have enough tests...
---
kernel/ptrace.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- PU/kernel/ptrace.c~52_SIGNAL_HANDLER 2009-09-23 00:50:28.000000000
+0200
+++ PU/kernel/ptrace.c 2009-09-23 01:46:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -362,7 +362,16 @@ static u32 ptrace_report_signal(u32 acti
switch (utrace_signal_action(action)) {
case UTRACE_SIGNAL_HANDLER:
- WARN_ON(1);
+ if (resume != UTRACE_RESUME) {
+ if (WARN_ON(context->siginfo))
+ context->siginfo = NULL;
+
+ ev = ev_push(context);
+ ev->ev_code = SIGTRAP;
+
+ return UTRACE_STOP | UTRACE_SIGNAL_IGN;
+ }
+
case UTRACE_SIGNAL_REPORT:
if (!context->siginfo)
return resume | UTRACE_SIGNAL_IGN;
