[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTik2KqKGwBAqN+CSz7_ergx5VM9x4A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:30:36 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@...glemail.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: make former thread ID available via
PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG after PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC stop (v.2)
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 05:18:27PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > and the only way to discover would be either comparing kernel
>> > version or actually trying it - both aren't too nice.
>>
>> Fortunately, currently tracehook_report_exec() zeroes ->ptrace_message.
>> At least this means that anything != 0 means it works.
>
> Yeah, but that's a pretty silly way to do it. If we make it depend on
> PT_SEIZED, we can simply say "if seized, EXEC reports..." but as it
> currently stands, it would go like "If the message is non-zero on
> EXEC, it indicates... This behavior is valid since kernel version
> x.x.x".
This is true for any new addition to API.
It starts from some kernel version.
> Maybe adding a guarantee that PTRACE_SEIZE capable kernel
> always reports the old pid on EXEC but that would still seem
> unnecessarily complicated. It isn't a bug fix. I don't see much
> point in introducing new behavior separately.
This new feature looks orthogonal to PTRACE_SEIZE to me.
--
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