From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <vda.linux@googlemail.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Merging ptrace branch into mainline
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:30:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110722103059.GK2622@htj.dyndns.org> (raw)
Hello,
Most of the changes that I had on mind when I wrote "Proposal for
ptrace improvements"[1] seem complete. The details of course changed
quite a bit during implementation iterations but AFAICS all the
features and fixes described in the propsal are now in Oleg's tree
waiting to be pulled into mainline. New features are still blocked by
the DEVEL flag indicating the API is not finalized yet and should be
used only for developement.
Remaining issues are
* Two different modes of trap notification - directly ptrace_notify()
and force_sig(SIGTRAP), which makes SIGTRAP special w.r.t. ptrace.
There are two alternatives. One is converting SIGTRAP notifications
into (async) ptrace_notify() notifications. The other is to leave
it alone and just declare that SIGTRAP indeed is special and
userland programs playing with SIGTRAP won't behave transparently
while ptraced.
I haven't really looked at it too much but am currently leaning
towards the latter.
* Somewhat related. Some part of ptrace, especially breakpoint and
singlestep handling, is more arch-specific than necessary and archs
diverged on what is reported how. Most of this should be unifiable
or at least categorized.
Neither is very critical and we shouldn't be introducing drastic
userland visible behavior differences no matter which way we choose,
but given that this isn't an urgent thing, I think it would be best to
merge the pending ptrace changes with the DEVEL blocking enabled for
3.1, so that we can have more time settling down things and hopefully
seeing how it works with actual userland usage.
What do you guys think?
Thank you.
--
tejun
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1107045
next reply other threads:[~2011-07-22 10:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-22 10:30 Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-07-22 11:40 ` Denys Vlasenko
2011-07-22 13:39 ` Tejun Heo
2011-07-22 14:59 ` Oleg Nesterov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110722103059.GK2622@htj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®