lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jan]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: linux-next: add utrace tree
    Hi -

    On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 05:25:13AM -0500, tytso@mit.edu wrote:
    > [...]
    > > > The killer app for this will be the ability to delete thousands of
    > > > lines of code from GDB, strace, and all the various other tools that
    > > > have to painfully work around the major interface gotchas of ptrace(),
    > > > while at the same time making their handling of complex processes much
    > > > more robust.
    > >
    > > No. There is absolutely _no_ reason to believe that gdb et al would ever
    > > delete the ptrace interfaces anyway.
    >
    > More to the point, gdb *couldn't* use utrace, because utrace only
    > exports a kernel API; not a syscall interface.

    Yes, this might explain why Kyle wrote:

    > > > [...] I believe that "utrace" is the kernel side of that
    > > > API. [...]

    > And if the Red Hat Toolchain folks are thinking about encouraging
    > gdb to start creating out-of-tree kernel modules [...] the Red Hat
    > Toolchain group needs to be smacked upside the head...

    Those keeping up will note that an ordinary in-tree, non-modular,
    non-root-only, already-works-with-standard-gdb,
    potentially-better-than-ptrace debugger interface has already been
    prototyped & posted on lkml as an RFC.


    - FChE


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-01-24 14:23    [W:4.210 / U:0.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site