Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

[Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:50:14AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 15:08 +0530, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:03:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-01-14 at 11:46 -0800, Jim Keniston wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  discussed elsewhere. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks for the pointer...
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> > Peter,
> > I think Jim was referring to
> > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/systemtap/2007-q1/msg00571.html
> 
> That's a 2007 email from some obscure list... that's hardly something
> that can be referenced to without link.
> 
> As previously stated, I think poking at a process's address space is an
> utter no-go.

In which case we'll need to find a different solution to it. The gdb
style of 'breakpoint hit' -> 'put original instruction back in place' ->
single-step -> 'put back the breakpoint' would be a big limiter,
especially for multithreaded cases.

The design here is to have a small vma sufficiently high enough in
memory a-la vDSO that most apps won't reach, though there is still no
ironclad guarantee.

Ideally, we will need to single-step on a copy of the instruction, in the
user address space of the traced process.

Ideas?

Ananth
--
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/