On Wednesday 25 January 2012 21:20, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/25/2012 07:36 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Not sure this is really better, but there is another idea. Currently we > > have PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD to avoid the confusion with the real SIGTRAP. > > Perhaps we can add PTRACE_O_TRACESYS_VERY_GOOD (or we can look at > > PT_SEIZED instead) and report TS_COMPAT via ptrace_report_syscall ? > > May I beg to don't rely on PTRACE_SYSCALL for anything new? This doesn't *add* anything new. All the same ptrace stops will happen at exactly the same moments. No new stops added. We only add a value into upper half of waitpid status: (status >> 16) used to be 0 on syscall entry. Now it will be PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTRY[1]. That's all. > You can't PTRACE_SINGLESTEP and PTRACE_SYSCALL simultaneously. This is an orthogonal problem. -- vda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
