[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
>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:0.106 / U:1.732 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site