[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines
    On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote:
    >> Why not introduce a new request for PTRACE_VM but use *tags* in 'addr'?
    >> We are taking risks of breaking the existing code. :)
    >Yes, there is a minimal risk to break some code. This is a con.
    >On the other side there are two main pros for this proposal:
    >1- the code is now extremely simple

    Why adding a new request for ptrace is harder? I don't think so. :)

    >2- if we define a different tag for syscall (e.g. PTRACE_VM), we need also
    >different tags for PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP, PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK and maybe
    >others in the future.
    >Using the addr field we don't need this multiplication of tags
    >(and we could soon delete PTRACE_SYSEMU and PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP).

    Yes? We could also remove PTRACE_SYSEMU* if we had PTRACE_VM to replace
    it. I would like to hear more from you on this point.


    Do what you love, f**k the rest! F**k the regulations!

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-03-29 18:35    [W:0.021 / U:22.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site