lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: add utrace tree


    On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
    >
    > Finally, I don't know how to address the logic of "if a feature
    > requires utrace, that's a bad argument for utrace" and at the same
    > time "you need to show a killer app for utrace". What could possibly
    > satisfy both of those constraints? Please advise.

    The point is, the feature needs to be a killer feature. And I have yet to
    hear _any_ such killer feature, especially from a kernel maintenance
    standpoint.

    The "better ptrace than ptrace" is irrelevant. Sure, we all know ptrace
    isn't a wonderful feature. But it's there, and a debugger is going to have
    support for it anyway, so what's the _advantage_ of a "better ptrace
    interface"? There is absolutely _zero_ advantage, there's just "yet
    another interface". We can't get rid of the old one _anyway_.

    And the seccomp replacement just sounds horrible. Using some tracing
    interface to implement security models sounds like the worst idea ever.

    And like it or not, over the last almost-decade, _not_ having to have to
    work with system tap has been a feature, not a problem, for the kernel
    community.

    So what's the killer feature?

    Linus


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-22 23:03    [W:4.112 / U:0.568 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site