[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130314195204.GB26070@altlinux.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 23:52:05 +0400
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: strace
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:17:21PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> Dmitry,
>
> It looks like our strace broke on i686 between these two versions:
>
> * Wed May 02 2012 Dmitry V. Levin <ldv-at-owl.openwall.com> 4.7-owl1
> - Updated to 4.7.
>
> * Tue Mar 15 2011 Dmitry V. Levin <ldv-at-owl.openwall.com> 4.6-owl1
> - Updated to 4.6.
>
> On x86_64, 4.7-owl1 works fine.
>
> On i686, it fails. It prints lots of restart_syscall() lines instead of
> the actual syscall info.
Does it happen with i686 strace running under x86_64 or i686 kernel?
Both x86_64 and i686 strace builds worked for me at the time of 4.7-owl1
release under an x86_64 kernel based on 2.6.18-308.el5.028stab099.3.
> $ strace id
> restart_syscall() = 0
> restart_syscall() = 0x9889000
> restart_syscall() = -1 (errno 2)
> [...]
> restart_syscall() = 0
> restart_syscall() = 0
> restart_syscall( <unfinished ...>
> +++ exited with 0 +++
>
> The above run was on a system with 2.6.18-308.20.1.el5.028stab104.3.owl1,
> but I also tested with a much older kernel, got similar misbehavior.
> (strace was built against the new kernel's headers in either case, though.)
restart_syscall is syscall number 0. Could the difference between older
and newer asm/ptrace.h versions be so fatal?
--
ldv
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
