Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 May 2011 15:54:14 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: PTRACE_SEIZE should not stop [Re: [PATCH 02/11] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE] |
| |
Hello,
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.
-- tejun
| |