Messages in this thread |  | | From | "Albert D. Cahalan" <> | Subject | Re: CLONE_PTRACE | Date | Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:05:16 -0400 (EDT) |
| |
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |