[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110520091256.GD31426@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:12:56 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>, oleg@...hat.com,
jan.kratochvil@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
indan@....nu, bdonlan@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
Hello,
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:56:22AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Ptrace API never allowed poking of running tracees.
>
> Which is a bit lame.
Lame as it may be, it would be quite challenging to change that.
> > You need to stop it first.
>
> That was my point... I was just pointing out that GDB will end
> up PTRACE_INTERRUPTing the target anyway. Maybe we could extend
> GDB's "observer" mode to be even more observer-only, and delay
> reading the DSO list and whatever else GDB does on attach until
> the first stop, or to user request. Some archs need reading
> registers as soon as possible in order to actually know which
> arch variant we've attached to. Anyway, this is GDBs business.
> SEIZE not interrupting won't hurt GDB, and is obviously useful for
> some use cases and tracers, _provided the race with SETOPTS is fixed_.
Other than the to-be-removed SIGTRAP, I don't think the trace is
observable from userland. Do you have anything specific on mind?
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