[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Andi Kleen writes:
> On Sat, Aug 19, 2000 at 11:05:27PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:

>> I fail to see why you'd need a CLONE_NO_PTRACE flag (that's the
>> default) and what exactly you want to sysctl to set.
> I was just thinking about the implications of your "inherit ptrace on fork"
> approach. Unless you require the programs to be debugging aware the ptrace
> cloning would need to be default. Some programs may not want it, so they
> would need CLONE_NO_PTRACE.

It is a bug to let a program refuse to be debugged.

> Actually a sysctl would be wrong on second thought, a special flag for
> ptrace() that enables ptrace inheritance would make more sense.
> But that's all mood I think, because PTRACE_SYSCALL + event filter + vmid
> is a much more general solution that would cover many more cases.

Eh, "vmid"??? I hope you don't intend to define a process as a
set of tasks which share exactly one address space. If you want
a real process ID, it ought to be shared by tasks that share _any_
other attribute not normally shared by distinct processes.

Example: if two tasks share file descriptors, then they can not
be considered distinct processes.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:37    [W:0.043 / U:2.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site