[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/1] ptrace_vm: let us simplify the code for ptrace and add useful features for VM
    On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 09:08:31PM +0200, Renzo Davoli wrote:
    > 0 -> do the syscall and notify after it

    To be more precise -
    do the call notification, do the syscall, and do the return notification
    > PTRACE_VM_SKIPEXIT -> do the syscall and do not notify after it
    don't do the return notification
    > PTRACE_VM_SKIPCALL -> skip everything.
    don't do the syscall or return notification

    Looking at things this way, it seems like you might want three flags,
    since the asymmetry is caused by two things being bundled into

    If you have
    PTRACE_VM_SKIPEXIT - skip the return notification
    PTRACE_VM_SKIPCALL - skip the syscall
    PTRACE_VM_SKIPSTART - skip the call notification
    this makes the meaning make more sense to me.

    The downside of this is that you end up at least one combination that
    doesn't make too much sense, like PTRACE_VM_SKIPCALL (do both
    notifications even though nothing could have changed in between).

    > umview (and now kmview using a kernel module based on utrace) decides if
    > a syscall must be virtualized or not depending on the value of its
    > arguments, not on the syscall number. With "system call" I mean "call of
    > a system call", a "system call call";-)

    OK, if you're looking at the arguments in order to decide what to do,
    then you can't just mask out the notifications.


    Work email - jdike at linux dot intel dot com

     \ /
      Last update: 2008-06-18 18:53    [W:0.020 / U:54.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site