[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110526101102.GF9715@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 12:11:02 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.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 Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:01:42AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> SYSGOOD makes sense, it just enables a means to distinguish syscall
> SIGTRAPs from regular SIGTRAPs -- it doesn't cause child stops itself.
> TRACE_EXEC, I'm not so sure. (and it appears to have been proposed
> on the premise that SEIZE would still report the SIGTRAP).
> Why would that make sense, and not TRACE_FORK, for example? I can imagine
> a tracer only caring for syscall entry/exit, and not needing a special
> event on exec. IMO, any kind of event that forces a child stop that
> would't happen if the child wasn't traced should have to be enabled
> explicitly.
The problem with exec is that very weird things happen during exec.
Tasks change their ids, tracees get silently pruned and so on, so
there might not be a transparent way for a ptracer to deal with it.
It needs to be notified and handle the situation whether it wants or
not.
What I was saying was there won't be SIGTRAP. In general, we're
trying to move away from kernel implicitly sending actual signals. If
we enable it by default, it will be a proper ptrace trap.
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