From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268577AbUHaN5j (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:57:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268582AbUHaN5j (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:57:39 -0400 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.172.17]:51153 "EHLO nevyn.them.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268577AbUHaN5Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:57:24 -0400 Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:56:54 -0400 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: OGAWA Hirofumi Cc: Linus Torvalds , Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] cleanup ptrace stops and remove notify_parent Message-ID: <20040831135654.GA22337@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: OGAWA Hirofumi , Linus Torvalds , Roland McGrath , Andrew Morton , Kernel Mailing List References: <200408310411.i7V4B8Vs027772@magilla.sf.frob.com> <87k6vfqwc7.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k6vfqwc7.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 10:19:04PM +0900, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > > > Ok, I definitely agree with the approach > > I agree with that approach. > > > Looks pretty clean as an implementation. The question is whether we should > > aim for 2.6.9 or 2.6.10 - if the first, then I should probably take it > > now, otherwise it should go into -mm first and be merged early after 2.6.9 > > has been released, for the first -rc. > > > > I _looks_ pretty safe, and it's hopefully much less likely to have subtle > > bugs and races than our old approach had, but I have a hard time judging. > > Ptrace has several ugly things. And I'm thinking those needs > user-visible change more or less to improve, like this. > (->parent/wait4/child_list, PTRACE_SYSCALL/PTRACE_SINGLESTEP ...) > > Should we also clean up and improve those with user-visible change? > Those should be thought as separate issue? > > I think we should be improved with new interface... (after it, we > can deprecate ptrace) I recommend the same thing I recommend every time this comes up: make sure to take a look at how Solaris does this through /proc. It seems to be much nicer. -- Daniel Jacobowitz