jeremy@goop.org said:
> I suspect Valgrind could use this too at some point. There hasn't
> been much discussion about it yet, but I think Valgrind may well move
> towards a more complete virtualization in a later round of
> development, and isolating the virtual virtual address space from the
> Valgrind's real virtual address space would be very useful. (Jeff
> suggested the idea of merging Valgrind and UML at some level, which
> does raise some interesting possibilities.)
Yes, valgrind already has a pseudo-scheduler, a psuedo-threads library, it
delivers signals by hand, and it wants to run its client in a separate
thread so it can get out of the business of being an LD_PRELOAD shared
library.
This is all stuff that UML has, that UML does right (/me crosses fingers),
and that is usable by Valgrind (and anything else that's interested) with
some repackaging of UML as a library.
Replacing Valgrind's signal delivery with UML's is a no-brainer. Replacing
its scheduler and threads library would involve it creating UML processes
by calling UML's do_fork(). Valgrind would need to provide the low-level
switch_to, I think. There are probably other things that Valgrind would
need to provide, but I see no reason this wouldn't work.
Jeff
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 31 2002 - 22:00:13 EST