Re: [PATCH] Warn users about mismatched PID namespaces

[Daniel Colascione <dancol at dancol dot org>]

On 11/05/2014 10:55 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/30/2014 01:11 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 10/30/2014 12:51 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>>> On 10/30/2014 12:49 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/2014 12:32 PM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>>>>> On 10/30/2014 12:23 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/30/2014 03:07 AM, Daniel Colascione wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/gdb/linux-thread-db.c b/gdb/linux-thread-db.c
>>>>>>> index 352fac1..4089417 100644
>>>>>>> - --- a/gdb/linux-thread-db.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/gdb/linux-thread-db.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1223,6 +1223,25 @@ thread_db_new_objfile (struct objfile *objfile)
>>>>>>>  static void
>>>>>>>  thread_db_inferior_created (struct target_ops *target, int from_tty)
>>>>>>>  {
>>>>>>> +  /* If the child is in a different PID namespace, its idea of its PID
>>>>>>> +     will differ from our idea of its PID.  When we scan the child's
>>>>>>> +     thread list, we'll mistakenly think it has no threads since the
>>>>>>> +     thread PID fields won't match the PID we give to
>>>>>>> +     libthread_db.  */
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not give libthread_db the right PID then?
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you suggest find it? 
>>>>
>>>> Isn't it visible somewhere in /proc ?
>>>
>>> Not AFAICT, but maybe I overlooked something.
>>
>> Oh well...
> 
> FYI, looks like exposing the info in /proc is in the works
> as well.  I just stumbled uppon this:
> 
>   https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/5/174

That's good to hear. It won't help users of current kernels though.

Anyway, my paperwork just went through. Is there anything I need to do now?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature