Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:01:51 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements |
| |
On 03/04, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hey, Oleg. > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:34:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > P4. PTRACE_SEIZE > > > > This is the new request. You know, I'd like to discuss the details > > later and separately. Actually, I think the user-space developers > > should participate and tell what they need. As for me, I certainly > > agree that SIGSTOP from PTRACE_ATTACH is very wrong, and it is very > > bad that gdb has to send SIGSTOP if it wants to stop the tracee. > > IOW, I agree that something like this is needed and useful. In > > particular, > > While discussing is good, I'd like to keep things slightly more > driven. I think, as anything else, there's a balance to hit between > discussing and just pushing things forward. We did fair amount of > discussion past two+ months and well I think it's about time to push > forward. > > By now gdb/strace ppl should be aware of what's going on, right?
Yes. I think I wasn't clear.
What I meant, I think the exact details can be discussed separately. Say, personally I'd prefer 2 different requests, ATTACH && INTERUPT, but I think this is very minor, and I agree with everything as long as user-space developers do not object. I just tried to avoid the discussion of the "cosmetic" details at this point.
> So, > if you guys have something on mind w.r.t. kernel behavior, please > share, but I won't wait for some discussion elsewhere
No. I agree, this should be discussed here.
Oleg.
| |