* Linus Torvalds | 2020-04-27 21:28:14 [-0700]: >> I hate to say this, but I’m not convinced that asking the gdb folks is >> the right approach. GDB has an ancient architecture and is >> *incredibly* buggy. I’m sure ptrace is somewhere on the pain point >> list, but I suspect it’s utterly dwarfed by everything else. > >You may be right. However, if gdbn isn't going to use it, then I >seriously don't think it's worth changing much. > >It might be worth looking at people who don't use ptrace() for >debugging, but for "incidental" reasons. IOW sandboxing, tracing, >things like that. > >Maybe those people want things that are simpler and don't actually >need the kinds of hard serialization that ptrace() wants. > >I'd rather add a few really simple things that might not be a full >complement of operations for a debugger, but exactly because they >aren't a full debugger, maybe they are things that we can tell are >obviously secure and simple? Okay, to sum up the the whole discussion: we go forward with Jann's proposal by simple adding PTRACE_ATTACH_PIDFD and friends. This is the minimal invasive solution and the risk of an potenial security problem is almost not present[TM]. Changing the whole ptrace API is a different beast. I rather believe that I see Linus Linux successor rather than a ptrace successor. I am fine with PTRACE_ATTACH_PIDFD! Hagen
