Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:40:01 +0200 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] ptrace: move SIGTRAP on exec(2) logic to ptrace_event() |
| |
On 06/21, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hello, > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > Why does this make ptrace_event() smarter? > > > > OK, tracehooks should die. But why should we move this special case > > into ptrace_event? Say, a simple > > > > static inline void ptrace_exec_event(...) > > { > > if (!ptrace_event_enabled(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC)) > > send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0); > > else > > ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC); > > } > > > > in fs/exec.c looks a bit better to me. > > The intention is to concentrate ptrace specific logic in > ptrace_event(). We'll have more of them, mostly dependent on > PT_SEIZED and I don't think it's a good idea to scatter them across > the kernel. They're of no interest outside of ptrace after all. I > think it's better to have them collected in one place than scattered > around.
This was one of the reasons for tracehooks ;)
OK, we can move this helper to ptrace.h although I do not think this makes sense. As for "scattered around", imho the code which calculates trace in do_fork() falls into the same category.
I still can't understand why ptrace_event() should check EVENT_EXEC. This is the special case, it should be handled specially. And while I think this is not that important, this is not friendly to do_fork, compiler has to generate the code to check event.
But OK, I applied 1-5 and 7. This is minor, and we can reconsider this later. I mean, right now I think I'll send the cleanup later, and you will have to explain your nack ;)
Oleg.
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |