Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Thursday 26 May 2011 10:10:41, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Btw. Speaking of SEIZE->execvd->INTERRUPT which makes the tracee see
> > a SIGTRAP. 

I was told before that when SEIZE was in effect, there's no magic
SIGTRAP on exec.

> > Stupid question. Perhaps PTRACE_SEIZE should set
> > PT_TRACESYSGOOD | PT_TRACE_EXEC along with PT_SEIZED automatically?
> > PT_SEIZED implies the new behaviour anyway.
> 
> Yeap, it makes sense to set them by default.  

SYSGOOD makes sense, it just enables a means to distinguish syscall
SIGTRAPs from regular SIGTRAPs -- it doesn't cause child stops itself.
TRACE_EXEC, I'm not so sure.  (and it appears to have been proposed
on the premise that SEIZE would still report the SIGTRAP).
Why would that make sense, and not TRACE_FORK, for example?  I can imagine
a tracer only caring for syscall entry/exit, and not needing a special
event on exec.  IMO, any kind of event that forces a child stop that
would't happen if the child wasn't traced should have to be enabled
explicitly.

Heck, GDB passes a subset of signals straight down to
the child without informing the user (e.g., see "handle SIGALRM"
command), and it would be an improvement in
the tracer-affects-tracee's-scheduling department to have a means to
let ptrace know a tracer isn't interested in such-and-such signals.
Conversely, going with the non-intrusive tracing theme, it would
even make sense for the tracer to have to request "let me know
about signals (all or a subset) sent to tracee too"

-- 
Pedro Alves