lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)
    From
    Date
    On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:59 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > On 01/17/2010 04:52 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 16:39 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 01/15/2010 11:50 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an
    > >>> utter no-go.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> Why not reserve an address space range for this, somewhere near the top
    > >> of memory? It doesn't have to be populated if it isn't used.
    > >>
    > > Because I think poking at a process's address space like that is gross.
    > > Also, if its fixed size you're imposing artificial limits on the number
    > > of possible probes.
    > >
    >
    > btw, an alternative is to require the caller to provide the address
    > space for this. If the caller is in another process, we need to allow
    > it to play with the target's address space (i.e. mmap_process()). I
    > don't think uprobes justifies this by itself, but mmap_process() can be
    > very useful for sandboxing with seccomp.

    mmap_process() sounds utterly gross, one process playing with another
    process's address space.. yuck!


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-17 16:05    [W:0.024 / U:30.072 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site