On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Finally, I don't know how to address the logic of "if a feature > requires utrace, that's a bad argument for utrace" and at the same > time "you need to show a killer app for utrace". What could possibly > satisfy both of those constraints? Please advise. The point is, the feature needs to be a killer feature. And I have yet to hear _any_ such killer feature, especially from a kernel maintenance standpoint. The "better ptrace than ptrace" is irrelevant. Sure, we all know ptrace isn't a wonderful feature. But it's there, and a debugger is going to have support for it anyway, so what's the _advantage_ of a "better ptrace interface"? There is absolutely _zero_ advantage, there's just "yet another interface". We can't get rid of the old one _anyway_. And the seccomp replacement just sounds horrible. Using some tracing interface to implement security models sounds like the worst idea ever. And like it or not, over the last almost-decade, _not_ having to have to work with system tap has been a feature, not a problem, for the kernel community. So what's the killer feature? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
