[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100514005651.246A940059@magilla.sf.frob.com>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 17:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/11] Uprobes Implementation
> so arguably it would be good to just make the rule be that you cannot
> probe a shared mapping. Because whatever you do, it's always the wrong
> thing.
Agreed. Or, if you do, it's doing something entirely different and should
be in an interface where you're explicitly attaching it generically to the
file (what's being shared) without regard to any individual process. But,
as you mentioned, shared, executable mappings are well outside the normal
case and there is no reason to think that a first (or fourth) version of
anything needs to support them at all.
Thanks,
Roland
--
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