[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tracer for sys_open() - sreadahead
2009/1/29 Frédéric Weisbecker <>:
> 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <>:
>>> Several people talked me about utrace and gave some examples about it in
>>> this discussion. The Api is very convenient to fetch syscall numbers,
>>> arguments and return values. And the hooks are done in the generic core
>>> code, so it is arch independent.
>>> The only drawback I can see is that it is not yet merged upstream, in
>>> need of in-kernel users. If it only depends on this condition, we could
>>> be these users...
>>> What do you think?
>> sure - how do the minimal bits/callbacks look like which enable syscall
>> tracing?
>> Ingo
> There is a very straightforward example provided by Ananth in there:

One other drawback may be the fact that utrace will be traced by the
function tracers... adding some junk on their traces.
But I guess this is just a matter of some patches to make it not traced.

BTW, there is an interesting proof of concept there:
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-29 15:51    [W:0.064 / U:1.084 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site