[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201105241049.58921.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:49:58 +0100
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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
On Friday 20 May 2011 10:31:11, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:27:35AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > 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 see, indeed, thanks.
A couple interface questions that just crossed my mind:
- on a fork/vfork/clone, if PTRACE_EVENT_FORK|VFORK|CLONE have been
enabled, will the tracer still see the new child stop with a
SIGSTOP, or will it see a PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT?
- is PTRACE_INTERRUPT on PTRACE_TRACEME-traced-child planed to
be allowed (for convenience)?
A PTRACE_O_TRACEINTERRUPT, or some such PTRACE_SETOPTIONS
option might be necessary to get PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT instead
of SIGSTOP in the point above.
--
Pedro Alves
--
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