From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 9 15:13:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F85637B421 for ; Sat, 9 Feb 2002 15:13:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by flood.ping.uio.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id F0EC45343; Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:13:04 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.ofug.org/~des/ X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message do not necessarily coincide with those of any organisation or company with which I am or have been affiliated. To: Zhihui Zhang Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ptrace and SIGTRAP problem References: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 10 Feb 2002 00:13:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lines: 14 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Zhihui Zhang writes: > On 9 Feb 2002, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > execve(2) in kern_exec.c posts SIGTRAP if the process has debugging > > turned on (which it does as a result of PT_TRACE_ME). > This is one time thing. It will be catched by the first wait() > call in the parent process. Yes. Subsequent SIGTRAPs normally indicate that syscall tracing is enabled (see /sys/i386/i386/trap.c) but I don't think that's the case here. I'll try to figure out what's happening when I find time. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message