Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759758Ab1CDQK5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:10:57 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42626 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759618Ab1CDQK4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Mar 2011 11:10:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:01:51 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Tejun Heo Cc: Roland McGrath , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, Denys Vlasenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Proposal for ptrace improvements Message-ID: <20110304160151.GA23553@redhat.com> References: <20110301152457.GE26074@htj.dyndns.org> <20110303173422.GA27960@redhat.com> <20110304084441.GB20499@htj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110304084441.GB20499@htj.dyndns.org> 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: 1715 Lines: 44 On 03/04, Tejun Heo wrote: > > Hey, Oleg. > > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:34:22PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > P4. PTRACE_SEIZE > > > > This is the new request. You know, I'd like to discuss the details > > later and separately. Actually, I think the user-space developers > > should participate and tell what they need. As for me, I certainly > > agree that SIGSTOP from PTRACE_ATTACH is very wrong, and it is very > > bad that gdb has to send SIGSTOP if it wants to stop the tracee. > > IOW, I agree that something like this is needed and useful. In > > particular, > > While discussing is good, I'd like to keep things slightly more > driven. I think, as anything else, there's a balance to hit between > discussing and just pushing things forward. We did fair amount of > discussion past two+ months and well I think it's about time to push > forward. > > By now gdb/strace ppl should be aware of what's going on, right? Yes. I think I wasn't clear. 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. > So, > if you guys have something on mind w.r.t. kernel behavior, please > share, but I won't wait for some discussion elsewhere No. I agree, this should be discussed here. Oleg. -- 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/