Re: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtualmachines

[AmÃrico Wang]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote:
>> Why not introduce a new request for PTRACE_VM but use *tags* in 'addr'?
>> We are taking risks of breaking the existing code. :)
>
>Yes, there is a minimal risk to break some code. This is a con.
>On the other side there are two main pros for this proposal:
>1- the code is now extremely simple 

Why adding a new request for ptrace is harder? I don't think so. :)


>2- if we define a different tag for syscall (e.g. PTRACE_VM), we need also
>different tags for PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP, PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK and maybe
>others in the future.
>Using the addr field we don't need this multiplication of tags
>(and we could soon delete PTRACE_SYSEMU and PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP).
>

Yes? We could also remove PTRACE_SYSEMU* if we had PTRACE_VM to replace
it. I would like to hear more from you on this point.

Thanks.

-- 
Do what you love, f**k the rest! F**k the regulations!
 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/