[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111122153326.GD322@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:33:26 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@...esourcery.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/3] fork: Add the ability to create tasks with
given pids
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:04:38PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> This whole userspace C/R stuff and being able to set the child's pid has potential
> of being very useful for GDB too, allowing a much better reimplementation of its
> old checkpointing feature [*], and allowing for a faster reverse debugging
> implementation, by being able to do faster rewinding -- restore snapshot and replay
> instructions up to N (by single stepping or running to breakpoint), rather than
> manually undoing the effects of each instruction, one by one.
>
> IOW, root only would be a shame from GDB's perspective.
Would CAP_CHECKPOINT be a shame too? I'm reluctant about priviledge
through fd inheritance mostly because of its unusualness. I don't
think priv management is a good problem space for small creative
solutions. We're much better off with mundane mechanisms which people
are already familiar with and is easy to account for.
Thank you.
--
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