linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <y0mvdf3en1y.fsf@fche.csb>
Date:	Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:26:33 -0500
From:	fche@...hat.com (Frank Ch. Eigler)
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
	utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> [...]
> Right, so all that need be done is add the multiple probe stuff to UBP
> and its a sane interface to use on its own, at which point I'd be
> inclined to call that uprobes (UBP really is an crap name).

At one point ubp+uprobes were one piece.  They were separated on the
suspicion that lkml would like them that way.

> Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to
> use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting.

Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the
layering relationship of these pieces.  utrace underlies uprobes and
other process manipulation functionality, present and future.

- FChE
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/