On 11/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I don't like any of this at all. Can we please choose a sensible API > design and let the API drive the implementation instead of vice versa? I too do not understand your concerns... > ISTM the correct solution is to add some new state to task_struct for > this. Sure we can do this. I have argued with the previous version not because the new member blows the task_struct. Although I think it is better to avoid this if possible. But this doesn't affect the API. Yes, this version uses ->ptrace_message but I think this is _good_ exactly because it is already visible to userspace, so if debugger only needs to distinguish syscall entry/exit it can simply use PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG without PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO. > If we're concerned about making task_struct bigger, I have a > half-finished patch to factor all the ptrace tracee state into a > separate struct. I even sent the patch(es) which does this several years ago ;) Oleg.
