Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [uml-devel] Re: [RFC] PATCH 3/4 - Time virtualization : PTRACE_SYSCALL_MASK | From | "Charles P. Wright" <> | Date | Wed, 26 Apr 2006 17:29:53 -0400 |
| |
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 15:40 -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:26:42PM -0400, Charles P. Wright wrote: > > I have a similar local patch that I've been using. I think it would be > > worthwhile to have an extra bit in the bitmap that says what to do with > > calls that fall outside the range [0, __NR_syscall]. That way the > > ptrace monitor can decide whether it is useful to get informed of these > > "bogus" calls. > > The bit needs to be somewhere, but I think sticking it in the syscall > bitmask is a bad idea. Mixing apples and oranges, as it were. > Sticking it in the op is better, even though that's a bit of apples > and oranges as well. > > Another alternative would be to make it an option and set it with > PTRACE_SETOPTIONS. That is probably a better solution than sticking it in the request (I assume you meant request by op). I think spawning more PTRACE_* requests that perform some permutation of PTRACE_SYSCALL is likely to make things confusing.
Charles
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |