[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B544D7C.2060708@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:01:00 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: ananth@...ibm.com, Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ibm.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
utrace-devel <utrace-devel@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Maneesh Soni <maneesh@...ibm.com>,
Mark Wielaard <mjw@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)
On 01/18/2010 01:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> You've made it clear that you don't like it, but not why.
>>
>> The kernel already manages the user's address space (except for
>> MAP_FIXED which is unreliable unless you've already reserved the address
>> space). I don't see why adding a vma for debugging is so horrible.
>>
> Well, the kernel only does what the user (and loader) tell it through
> mmap().
What I meant was that the kernel chooses the addresses (unless you go
the MAP_FIXED way). From the user's point of view, there is no change
in behaviour: the kernel picks an address. If the constraints have
changed (because we reserve a range), that doesn't affect the user.
> Other than that we never (except this VDSO thing) inject vmas,
> and I see no reason to start doing that now.
>
Maybe you place no value on uprobes. But people who debug userspace
likely will see a reason.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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