lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: PTRACE_SEIZE should not stop [Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE]
Hi Tejun,

On Mon, 16 May 2011 15:45:10 +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I don't think INTERRUPT can be prioritized like that above existing
> trap conditions. Traps are taken sometimes deep in the kernel
> (e.g. fork/exec) and often after modifying states irrevocably
> (e.g. signal is already dequeued on signal trap). I don't think how
> it would be possible to rewind the state changes and replay it later.

OK, so that closes one of the major issues I was trying to get "fixed".


Thanks for info,
Jan


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 15:51    [W:0.139 / U:0.824 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site