[lldb/linux] Make sure the process continues running after a detach (#88494)

Fixes #85084

Whenever an inferior thread stops, lldb-server sends a SIGSTOP to all
other threads in the process to force them to stop as well. If those
threads stop on their own before they get a signal, this SIGSTOP will
remain pending and be delivered the next time the process resumes.

Normally, this is not a problem, because lldb-server will detect this
stale SIGSTOP and resume the process. However, if we detach from the
process while it has these SIGSTOPs pending, they will get immediately
delivered, and the process will remain stopped (most likely forever).

This patch fixes that by sending a SIGCONT just before detaching from
the process. This signal cancels out any pending SIGSTOPs, and ensures
it is able to run after we detach. It does have one somewhat unfortunate
side-effect that in that the process's SIGCONT handler (if it has one)
will get executed spuriously (from the process's POV).

This could be _sometimes_ avoided by tracking which threads got send a
SIGSTOP, and whether those threads stopped due to it. From what I could
tell by observing its behavior, this is what gdb does. I have not tried
to replicate that behavior here because it adds a nontrivial amount of
complexity and the result is still uncertain -- we still need to send a
SIGCONT (and execute the handler) when any thread stops for some other
reason (and leaves our SIGSTOP hanging). Furthermore, since SIGSTOPs
don't stack, it's also possible that our SIGSTOP/SIGCONT combination
will cancel a genuine SIGSTOP being sent to the debugger application (by
someone else), and there is nothing we can do about that. For this
reason I think it's simplest and most predictible to just always send a
SIGCONT when detaching, but if it turns out this is breaking something,
we can consider implementing something more elaborate.

One alternative I did try is to use PTRACE_INTERRUPT to suspend the
threads instead of a SIGSTOP. PTRACE_INTERUPT requires using
PTRACE_SEIZE to attach to the process, which also made this solution
somewhat complicated, but the main problem with that approach is that
PTRACE_INTERRUPT is not considered to be a signal-delivery-stop, which
means it's not possible to resume it while injecting another signal to
the inferior (which some of our tests expect to be able to do). This
limitation could be worked around by forcing the thread into a signal
delivery stop whenever we need to do this, but this additional
complication is what made me think this approach is also not worthwhile.

This patch should fix (at least some of) the problems with
TestConcurrentVFork, but I've also added a dedicated test for checking
that a process keeps running after we detach. Although the problem I'm
fixing here is linux-specific, the core functinoality of not stopping
after a detach should function the same way everywhere.