Signals now cause an event, and there's a way to continue until the
next signal. I can see this being used for detection of `int3`
although I'm not entirely sure as it may prove being too late to stop
abortion of process.
This is a curious problem and it's really hard to solve it in a way
that doesn't feel hacky. On one hand, of course you want to be able to
modify and intercept what happens when you use a signal, right? On the
other hand, changes made to the context (especially singlestepping)
while a signal is handled (such as `SIGSTOP`) are not preserved since
the stack is restored after the signal handler was invoked.
I think what we have in this change makes sense anyway, as we don't
really want users modifying registers and other data in the default
signal behavior that occurs **in kernel mode**. Also trying to use
`PTRACE_SINGLESTEP` will set the singlestep flag only if in a
user-mode signal handler, else it will set it on the instruction after
the signal handling, which I guess makes sense since it can't affect
the kernel-mode code that runs the default handler.
I don't know. Help. Pls.
Since even a very basic ptrace can be nice to have, I thought I would split
the, perhaps rather big, ptrace project up in multiple PRs to make as few
changes as necessary in each. This PR contains the initial registry modifying
bits and only a very basic security measure. Letting this out to the community
should be good for spotting bugs and maybe getting some hype ;)
Most of this was generated by the absolutely extraordinary `cargo fix`
subcommand. There were still 2 errors and a few warnings to patch up,
but compared to the normal 600+ errors, I'd say the fixer did a damn
good job! I'm also amazed that I could still start the VM after this,
I half expected some kinds of runtime failure...
Jeremy Soller