[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201106180955.37531.vda.linux@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 09:55:37 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: 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,
pedro@...esourcery.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
On Tuesday 14 June 2011 11:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
#define PTRACE_EVENT_FORK 1
#define PTRACE_EVENT_VFORK 2
#define PTRACE_EVENT_CLONE 3
> #define PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC 4
> #define PTRACE_EVENT_VFORK_DONE 5
> #define PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT 6
> +#define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP 7
Er... these constants were corresponding exactly to
bit positions in ptrace options which enable them:
#define PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD 0x00000001
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEFORK 0x00000002
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORK 0x00000004
#define PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE 0x00000008
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC 0x00000010
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORKDONE 0x00000020
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT 0x00000040
For example, PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC is 4th bit, PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC is 4.
If we'd define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP as 7, any future added
PTRACE_O_foo bit with value 0x00000080 will be unable
to follow this convention.
I propose to define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP as 64 instead, leaving 64 low
PTRACE_EVENT_foo constants for possible future PTRACE_O_foo bits.
[32 should be enough too, but I feel paranoid today :)]
--
vda
--
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