> but now I think perhaps it would be better to send
> ptrace-change-tracehook_report_syscall_exit-to-handle-stepping_fix
> to akpm right now:
>
> --- a/include/linux/tracehook.h
> +++ b/include/linux/tracehook.h
> @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline __must_check int tracehook
> */
> static inline void tracehook_report_syscall_exit(struct pt_regs *regs,
> int step)
> {
> - if (step) {
> + if (step && (task_ptrace(current) & PT_PTRACED)) {
> siginfo_t info;
> user_single_step_siginfo(current, regs, &info);
> force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
>
> What do you think?
Yes, this makes it consistent with the x86 behavior before the change,
which used tracehook_consider_fatal_signal(current, SIGTRAP) in its test.
Thanks,
Roland
