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

On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:48:08PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> 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".

Sorry, this one was too difficult and, even if somehow I pulled it,
unlikely to make upstream. It's gonna be extremely fragile.
Unfortunately, userland would still have to deal with arbitrary order
of traps.

Thank you.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 15:57    [W:0.100 / U:3.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site