Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:58:14 +0200 | | From | Tejun Heo <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] ptrace: move SIGTRAP on exec(2) logic to ptrace_event() |
| |
Hello,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:40:01PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > 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 ;)
Yeah, sure. The problem with tracehook is not that it's a fundamentally wrong thing to do but it's way over done than actually necessary and full of requirements which are of no interest to inside the upstream kernel.
> 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.
The generated code should be the same. I didn't check all the cases but the few I check didn't really change.
> 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 ;)
Yeah, yeah, it's a minor point one way or the other. I was (and still is) thinking about folding most of ptrace-specific event logics into ptrace_event() and this was just a first step as I think adding more condition checks in fs/exec.c doesn't make much sense - ie. I might end up adding PT_SEZIED there too.
Thanks.
-- tejun
|  |