Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:23:28 -0500 | From | Daniel Jacobowitz <> | Subject | Re: ptrace single-stepping change breaks Wine |
| |
On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 09:41:44PM +0100, Eric Pouech wrote: > >Btw, does wine ever _use_ PTRACE_SINGLESTEP for any of the things it does? > > > >If it does, then that woulc certainly explain why my "fix" made no > >difference: my fix _only_ handles the case where the ptracer never > >actually asks for single-stepping, and single-stepping was started > >entirely by the program being run (ie by setting TF in eflags from within > >the program itself). > > > >But if wine ends up using PTRACE_SINGESTEP because wine actually wants to > >single-step over some instructions, then the kernel will set the PT_DTRACE > >bit, and start tracing through signal handlers too. The way Wine doesn't > >want.. > > wine mixes both approches, we have (to control what's generated inside the > various exception) to ptrace from our NT-kernel-like process (the ptracer) > to get the context of the exception. Restart from the ptracer is done with > PTRACE_SINGLESTEP.
I'm getting the feeling that the question of whether to step into signal handlers is orthogonal to single-stepping; maybe it should be a separate ptrace operation.
Platforms which don't implement PTRACE_SINGLESTEP would probably appreciate this. A "single step" which stops you after setting up the signal trampoline and adjusting the PC, before executing any instructions in the handler.
-- Daniel Jacobowitz - 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/
| |