[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100115142213.GS4822@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:22:13 -0500
From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>
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
Hi -
> > Well, I'm not in a position to argue line by line about the necessity
> > or the cost of utrace low level guts, but this may represent the most
> > practical engineering balance between functionality / modularity /
> > undesirably intrusive modifications.
>
> How intrusive and non-modular is installing a DIE_INT3 notifier?
I'm not sure about all the reasons pro/con, but it looks like
installing such a systemwide hook would force every userspace
breakpoint or kprobe event machine wide to pass through the
hypothetical uprobes layer, whether or not applicable to a current
task.
- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists