Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 17:06:54 -0300 From: =?utf-8?Q?Lucas_Nali_de_Magalh=C3=A3es?= <rollingbits@gmail.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Debugging signal 11 Message-ID: <D25406A0-FBDB-48FA-94B2-0367A0527797@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9d3b5c0cc7051f410fd04ff9ffba8aa0b5b32167.camel@freebsd.org> References: <9d3b5c0cc7051f410fd04ff9ffba8aa0b5b32167.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Apr 18, 2021, at 4:18 PM, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Sun, 2021-04-18 at 15:53 -0300, Lucas Nali de Magalh=C3=A3es w= rote: >> This also isn't the usual. Debugging a running process is possible but >> the process you used is the wrong one. Debugging init, OTOH, is a >> completely different story: init is the first process and is the most >> important process of any unix. The actual command varies from >> debugger to debugger but in gdb, "attach pid" may do the trick for >> you. You will need to be extra cautious because of you are aiming init. >> Ideally, init is the process supposed to catch the signals and keep >> the system running. So a break into it may cause your system to crash. >=20 > Given that it is init that is segfaulting, how to you propose that the > OP lauch gdb in order to do an attach to init? In other words: there > is a reason the OP is trying to use the kernel debugger to examine > what's going on here. First the OP was able to modify init. Then it was asked the command to do a stack trace. Thus the OP clearly hasn't the full knowledge of the procedure and the risks. Besides this, kgdb is based on gdb. I thought they should know. --=20 rollingbits =E2=80=94 =F0=9F=93=A7 rollingbits@icloud.com =F0=9F=93=A7 rolli= ngbits@gmail.com =F0=9F=93=A7 rollingbits@yahoo.com =F0=9F=93=A7 rollingbits= @terra.com.br =F0=9F=93=A7 rollingbits@globo.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D25406A0-FBDB-48FA-94B2-0367A0527797>