[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
    On 05/18, Tejun Heo wrote:
    > I've been thinking about Jan's suggestion to make ATTACH and DETACH
    > not require tracee to trap. We already have this for DETACH for cases
    > where the tracer is killed

    Yes, I still think that the new DETACH_XXX request which doesn't need
    the stopped tracee makes sense. Yes, we have PTRACE_INTERRUPT. But please
    recall the previous discussion, it is possible that the tracee can't
    react to PTRACE_INTERRUPT and trap because it waits for other threads
    we are tracing.

    And. Currently there is no way to detach a zombie leader. Perhaps we
    should change do_wait(), but it is not clear what should we do if the
    tracer is the real parent (we already discussed this a bit).

    > and it seems it wouldn't be too difficult
    > to make that happen for ATTACH either

    Yes, I think this is simple to do. Do we need this? I leave this up
    to you and Jan.

    To me personally attach-implies-trap looks more natural, but probably
    gdb has another opinion.

    Anyway. IIUC, gdb wants the auto-attach-on-clone without the trap,
    this is more important but this opens a lot of problems.

    > and for that to be truly useful
    > I suppose PTRACE_SETOPTIONS shouldn't require trapped state either.

    Hmm. Why? we could pass this options along with PTRACE_SEIZE?

    > Jan, would that be enough for the use cases you have on mind?



     \ /
      Last update: 2011-05-23 14:47    [W:0.021 / U:2.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site