[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110516122414.GS23665@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:24:14 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu
Subject: Re: PTRACE_DETACH without stop [Re: [PATCH 04/11] ptrace:
implement PTRACE_INTERRUPT]
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > Nope. What userland is currently dealing with isn't that type of
> > conditions. It's dealing with nasty side effects of implied and
> > required signals, which will be removed with the new interface.
>
> They won't as there will be new INTERRUPT event and when one wants to trap it
> one has to deal with various signals coming before or after it.
I'd rather lean toward handling it properly from userland. Strictly
defining trap order is too fragile. I think the right thing to do
here is properly documenting how to recognize and handle different
types of traps.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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