From: "Américo Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Renzo Davoli <renzo@cs.unibo.it>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mtk.manpages@gmail.com,
Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:32:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090329163228.GE7671@hack> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it>
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!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
User-mode-linux-devel mailing list
User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Américo Wang" <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
To: Renzo Davoli <renzo@cs.unibo.it>
Cc: Am??rico Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:32:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090329163228.GE7671@hack> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090324234753.GH22695@cs.unibo.it>
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!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-03-29 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-04 8:02 [PATCH 0/2] ptrace_vm: ptrace for syscall emulation virtual machines Renzo Davoli
2009-03-10 21:44 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-03-13 7:42 ` Américo Wang
2009-03-16 7:45 ` Américo Wang
2009-03-24 23:47 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-03-29 16:32 ` Américo Wang [this message]
2009-03-29 16:32 ` Américo Wang
2009-04-04 10:17 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-04-04 10:17 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-04-07 17:36 ` Américo Wang
2009-04-08 12:18 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-04-13 16:36 ` Américo Wang
2009-04-17 8:18 ` Américo Wang
2009-04-25 9:19 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-04-25 9:19 ` Renzo Davoli
2009-04-30 8:27 ` Américo Wang
2009-05-18 9:45 ` [uml-devel] " Amerigo Wang
2009-05-18 9:45 ` Amerigo Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090329163228.GE7671@hack \
--to=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
--cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=renzo@cs.unibo.it \
--cc=roland@redhat.com \
--cc=user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.