Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 19:11:37 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Cc: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, caiqian@redhat.com,
       Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
       Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: s390 && user_enable_single_step() (Was: odd utrace testing
	results on s390x)
Message-ID: <20100107181137.GB13300@redhat.com>
References: <1503844142.2061111261478093776.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1257887498.2061171261478252049.JavaMail.root@zmail06.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <20100104155225.GA16650@redhat.com> <20100104171626.22ea2d9c@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20100104181412.GA21146@redhat.com> <20100104211147.4CC94D532@magilla.sf.frob.com> <20100105105030.66bb8a0a@mschwide.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <20100105153633.GA9376@redhat.com> <20100106210812.E03A1134D@magilla.sf.frob.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100106210812.E03A1134D@magilla.sf.frob.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1724
Lines: 40

On 01/06, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > Oh, I am not sure. But I don't understand TIF_SINGLE_STEP on s390,
> > absolutely.
> >
> > For example, why do_signal() sets TIF_SINGLE_STEP? Why can't we do
>
> I think we could.  That would be more consistent with other machines.  On
> s390, once we set TIF_SINGLE_STEP, we are going to post a SIGTRAP
> eventually before going to user mode.  But then tracehook_signal_handler()
> also gets stepping=1 and the expected meaning of this is that the arch code
> is not itself simulating a single-step for the handler setup.  So the
> tracehook (i.e. ptrace/utrace) code does what it does for "need a fake
> single-step".
>
> In ptrace (including utrace-based ptrace), this winds up with sending a
> SIGTRAP.  So when we finally do get out of do_signal and TIF_SINGLE_STEP
> causes a second SIGTRAP, it's already pending and the second one makes no
> difference.

Confused again, perhaps I just misunderstood what you mean...

Without utrace, tracehook_signal_handler() doesn't send SIGTRAP, it
merely does ptrace_notify(SIGTRAP), this means that

> But for the general case of utrace, we'll have the UTRACE_SIGNAL_HANDLER
> report, followed by a SIGTRAP that appears to be an authentic single-step
> trap, but takes place on the same instruction.  If the resumption after the
> UTRACE_SIGNAL_HANDLER report didn't use stepping, then this is an entirely
> unexpected extra SIGTRAP.

even without utrace we can have unexpected SIGTRAP.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/