Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements

From: Oleg Nesterov
Date: Fri Mar 04 2011 - 11:35:18 EST


On 03/04, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> Hello, Oleg.
>
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 05:01:51PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > What I meant, I think the exact details can be discussed separately.
> > Say, personally I'd prefer 2 different requests, ATTACH && INTERUPT,
> > but I think this is very minor, and I agree with everything as long
> > as user-space developers do not object. I just tried to avoid the
> > discussion of the "cosmetic" details at this point.
>
> Understood. One thing tho. Do you think having ATTACH_NO_STOP would
> be better?

No, I don't think so. More precisely, I simply do not know, we should
probably ask Jan.

But. from the previous discussions, gdb seems to need
PTRACE_O_ATTACH_NEW_THREADS_AND_DO_NOT_STOP. Because gdb simply do not
want to know about the new thread, until it does something "interesting".
However this leads to other questions.

Oleg.

--
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/