[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110520093111.GG31426@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 11:31:11 +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, Pedro.
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:27:35AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Does it matter? The order of execution isn't even well defined
> > without synchronization border. If you want full synchronization, you
> > can INTERRUPT tracee.
>
> The point I was trying to raise was not about the order of
> execution, but about letting the old pre-nice PTRACE_EVENT_
> events quirks stick through.
I see.
> > Yes, SIGTRAP on exec(2) is nasty but also is scheduled to be removed
> > if SEIZED.
>
> Okay, good to hear that. Looks like the tracer can do:
>
> SEIZE,execve,SETOPTS,'readlink /proc/pid/exe'
>
> and pretend it SEIZED after the execve.
Yeap, and I was trying to say that if tracer and tracee are running on
different CPUs, the order between SEIZE and execve isn't even well
defined (sans the nasty automatic SIGTRAP).
> I'm happy for now.
Awesome, 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