lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines
On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 02:18:51PM +0200, Renzo Davoli wrote:
>> > #endif
>> > #ifdef PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK
>> > case PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK:
>> > #endif
>> > #ifdef PTRACE_SYSEMU
>> > case PTRACE_SYSEMU:
>> > case PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP:
>> > #endif
>> > case PTRACE_SYSCALL:
>> > case PTRACE_CONT:
>> > return ptrace_resume(child, request, 0, data);
>> >+/* statements added for PTRACE_VM management */
>> >+#ifdef PTRACE_VM
>> >+ case PTRACE_VM:
>> >+#ifdef PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP
>> >+ case PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP:
>> >+#endif
>> >+#ifdef PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK
>> >+ case PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK:
>> >+#endif
>> >+ return ptrace_resume(child, PTRACE_VM_TAGS_MAPPING(request), addr, data);
>> >+#endif
>> >....
>> >
>>
>> Hmmm, I see your points. Thanks for your analysis.
>>
>The "resume tags" SYSCALL, SINGLESTEP/SINGLEBLOCK, CONT give to ptrace
>the command to resume and indicate when ptrace must stop next time.
>The VM_SKIPCALL, VM_SKIPEXIT tags refer to the current system call.
>The two sets are independent, orthogonal.

I see.

>
>I may want to skip this system call and stop either at the next system call
>or at the next block, instruction or never.
>As usual, everything is possible with or without some tags, the difference
>in in this case in terms of clearness of the interface.

Yes, sure.

>
>If we'd provide only a PTRACE_VM call (namely a PTRACE_VM_SYSCALL)
>to resume up to the next syscall it was not possible to use it
>to implement a virtualized "ptrace".
>The virtual ptrace call may need to stop the process after an instruction
>or a block as it was requested to do so.
>In this case the VM monitor should use PTRACE_SINGLE* without the
>VM_SKIP* optimization (maybe faking the execution of a getpid
>to skip a system call, like in the old times of User mode Linux).
>For a similar reason PTRACE_SYSEMY_SINGLESTEP was added in the kernel.
>
>WHy we should make life harder to VM monitor designer?
>
>We could also have a unique PTRACE_VM tag and encode both
>SYSCALL/SINGLESTEP/SINGLEBLOCK/BLOCK
>and
>SKIPCALL/SKIPEXIT
>in different bits inside the addr field.
>
>Again, this is a trick to use just one tag.
>It is a matter of values.
>Efficiency is the meaning of this patch, so it is a conditio
>sine qua non.
>Apart from efficiency, what do we want most?
>Clearness of interface design?
>Back compatibility for very improbable cases?
>
>I bet on the former, usually it is an insurance for the future.

This is almost exactly what I said in my first mail, I
have no objection to your patch, I like it, I just wanted to try
to find a balance.

Anyway, I will test your patch tomorrow, and will send you more
feedbacks soon.

Thanks.

--
Live like a child, think like the god.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-13 18:39    [W:0.139 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site