Re: [PATCH 01/23] tracehook: add linux/tracehook.h

Alexey Dobriyan
2008-07-17T21:53:54Z

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:06:52PM +0200, Petr Tesarik wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 12:48 +0400, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 12:27:55AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > > The aim is to formalize and consolidate all the places that the core
> > > kernel code and the arch code now ties into the ptrace implementation.
> > >
> > > These patches mostly don't cause any functional change. They just
> > > move the details of ptrace logic out of core code into tracehook.h
> > > inlines, where they are mostly compiled away to the same as before.
> >
> > > All that changes is that everything is thoroughly documented
> >
> > This is fine.
> >
> > > and any future reworking of ptrace, or addition of something new,
> > > would not have to touch core code all over, just change the tracehook.h
> > > inlines.
> >
> > And this is suprising wish given one can't predict how exactly those
> > "future reworking" will look like.
> >
> > > The new linux/ptrace.h inlines are used by the following patches in the
> > > new tracehook_*() inlines. Using these helpers for the ptrace event
> > > stops makes it simple to change or disable the old ptrace implementation
> > > of these stops conditionally later.
> >
> > Call them "utrace_*" from the start?
>
> Ah, maybe justified, because I don't expect any other re-implementation
> of the same after utrace is finished, but -- there's still the old
> ptrace implementation, so _not_ mentioning utrace seems a bit better to
> me.

ptrace(2) will start calling utrace_* hooks and functions.

These tracehooks are generic and utrace is generic as well.