Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ISM780B.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!yale!ISM780B!geoff
From: geoff@ISM780B.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: ptrace child after fork?
Message-ID: <28500055@ISM780B.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Nov-85 12:23:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ISM780B.28500055
Posted: Wed Nov 27 12:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Nov-85 00:29:55 EST
References: <755@rtech.UUCP>
Lines: 13
Nf-ID: #R:rtech:-75500:ISM780B:28500055:000:498
Nf-From: ISM780B!geoff    Nov 27 12:23:00 1985


> My copy of the SVID does not say that the trace bit is
> inherited across a fork.  The reported behavior is
> wrong, or at least a change in traditional UNIX ptrace
> semantics.

My SVID describes this in appendix 3.0 (K_EXT), under "Effect on BASE ..."
I can't say I think it's a good idea, but that IS what the SVID says (sigh).

> Ptrace is all wrong anyhow and should be replaced
> with the 8th Edition UNIX mechanisms (/dev/proc etc.).

Won't argue with that, 'tho I'm not familiar with it.