Re: [PATCH 3/7] ptrace: move SIGTRAP on exec(2) logic to ptrace_event()

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why does this make ptrace_event() smarter?
>
> OK, tracehooks should die. But why should we move this special case
> into ptrace_event? Say, a simple
>
>        static inline void ptrace_exec_event(...)
>        {
>                if (!ptrace_event_enabled(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC))
>                        send_sig(SIGTRAP, current, 0);
>                else
>                        ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC);
>        }
>
> in fs/exec.c looks a bit better to me.

The intention is to concentrate ptrace specific logic in
ptrace_event().  We'll have more of them, mostly dependent on
PT_SEIZED and I don't think it's a good idea to scatter them across
the kernel.  They're of no interest outside of ptrace after all.  I
think it's better to have them collected in one place than scattered
around.  The PT_SEIZED ones would probably have some commonalities
among them too.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/