On 01/07, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:08:12 -0800 (PST) > Roland McGrath <rol...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > That's what tracehook_signal_handler is for. You're both doing it yourself > > in the arch code (by setting TIF_SINGLE_STEP), and then telling the generic > > code to do it (by passing stepping=1 to tracehook_signal_handler). > > Ok, so with the full utrace the semantics of tracehook_signal_handler > is more than just causing a SIGTRAP. It is an indication for a signal > AND a SIGTRAP if single-stepping is active. To make both cases work we > should stop setting TIF_SINGLE_STEP in do_signal and pass > current->thread.per_info.single_step to tracehook_signal_handler > instead of test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP).
Can't understand why do we need TIF_SINGLE_STEP at all. Just pass current->thread.per_info.single_step to tracehook_signal_handler() ? Oleg. --- a/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/signal.c @@ -504,14 +504,8 @@ void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs) * for a normal instruction, act like we took * one for the handler setup. */ - if (current->thread.per_info.single_step) - set_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP); - - /* - * Let tracing know that we've done the handler setup. - */ tracehook_signal_handler(signr, &info, &ka, regs, - test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLE_STEP)); + current->thread.per_info.single_step); } return; }