From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec 15 13:14:10 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C63F516A4CE; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:14:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 5B6FB43D4F; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:14:09 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBFLDweF068169;
	Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:14:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200312152114.hBFLDweF068169@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: dwhite@gumbysoft.com
In-Reply-To: <20031215084226.W81321@carver.gumbysoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: cracauer@FreeBSD.org
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
cc: bland@mail.ru
Subject: Re: truss issue
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 21:14:10 -0000

On 15 Dec, Doug White wrote:

> My reading of it is that it is truss hitting itself with the same signal
> that killed the process that it was tracing so that truss will exit
> showing that it was killed by a signal. So this is actually implementing
> the requested functionality.  Processes that exit due to a signal don't
> return an exit code.  It seems keyed on 'sigexit' whatever that is.

Hmn, I wonder if it would be cleaner to exec() the executable to be
traced in the parent process and run truss in the child ...