Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753890AbZC2Qb4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:31:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752047AbZC2Qbp (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:31:45 -0400 Received: from ti-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.142.185]:49877 "EHLO ti-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751093AbZC2Qbn (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:31:43 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=aNlKAzZKnmoVfrD/e4xabydW/qwD+sI4oOaEIvfUhZPUsD24Z268SAvoZLXlx4x6JN IRe3KD70JbIWlfb6cGhY3NEXiob8YgWjR7JkGXjuDjwUULRANoA7k8rMO5MMswqqSkQn SHOodPwVixPj903L4gowpCj4p2rjeUcUYUuik= Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:32:28 +0800 From: =?utf-8?Q?Am=C3=A9rico?= Wang To: Renzo Davoli Cc: Am??rico Wang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Dike , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Roland McGrath Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines Message-ID: <20090329163228.GE7671@hack> References: <20090204080236.GA17452@cs.unibo.it> <20090310214436.GC5213@cs.unibo.it> <20090316074520.GC3360@hack> <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1186 Lines: 31 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/