[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE
Hello, Pedro.

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:01:42AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> SYSGOOD makes sense, it just enables a means to distinguish syscall
> SIGTRAPs from regular SIGTRAPs -- it doesn't cause child stops itself.
> TRACE_EXEC, I'm not so sure. (and it appears to have been proposed
> on the premise that SEIZE would still report the SIGTRAP).
> Why would that make sense, and not TRACE_FORK, for example? I can imagine
> a tracer only caring for syscall entry/exit, and not needing a special
> event on exec. IMO, any kind of event that forces a child stop that
> would't happen if the child wasn't traced should have to be enabled
> explicitly.

The problem with exec is that very weird things happen during exec.
Tasks change their ids, tracees get silently pruned and so on, so
there might not be a transparent way for a ptracer to deal with it.
It needs to be notified and handle the situation whether it wants or

What I was saying was there won't be SIGTRAP. In general, we're
trying to move away from kernel implicitly sending actual signals. If
we enable it by default, it will be a proper ptrace trap.



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-26 12:13    [W:0.077 / U:13.176 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site