[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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:
> >
> > 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.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-06 12:19    [W:0.161 / U:27.724 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site