Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:32:28 +0800 | | From | Américo Wang <> | | Subject | Re: [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.
Thanks.
-- Do what you love, f**k the rest! F**k the regulations!
|  |