Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2011 14:00:13 +0200 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE |
| |
Hello,
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > A couple interface questions that just crossed my mind: > > - on a fork/vfork/clone, if PTRACE_EVENT_FORK|VFORK|CLONE have been > enabled, will the tracer still see the new child stop with a > SIGSTOP, or will it see a PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT?
This won't change, so SIGSTOP although we probably want to improve it such that this can be distinguished from SIGTRAP from userland.
> - is PTRACE_INTERRUPT on PTRACE_TRACEME-traced-child planed to > be allowed (for convenience)? > A PTRACE_O_TRACEINTERRUPT, or some such PTRACE_SETOPTIONS > option might be necessary to get PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT instead > of SIGSTOP in the point above.
I'm currently leaning toward deprecating PTRACE_TRACEME. If a task can PTRACE_TRACEME, it may as well just do pause(2) and let the parent SEIZE it.
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |