Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)
From: Avi Kivity
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 07:01:54 EST
On 01/18/2010 01:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
You've made it clear that you don't like it, but not why.Well, the kernel only does what the user (and loader) tell it through
The kernel already manages the user's address space (except for
MAP_FIXED which is unreliable unless you've already reserved the address
space). I don't see why adding a vma for debugging is so horrible.
What I meant was that the kernel chooses the addresses (unless you go
the MAP_FIXED way). From the user's point of view, there is no change
in behaviour: the kernel picks an address. If the constraints have
changed (because we reserve a range), that doesn't affect the user.
Other than that we never (except this VDSO thing) inject vmas,
and I see no reason to start doing that now.
Maybe you place no value on uprobes. But people who debug userspace
likely will see a reason.
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/