Re: [PATCH 2/5] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 09:55:37AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 June 2011 11:20, Tejun Heo wrote:
>    #define PTRACE_EVENT_FORK    1
>    #define PTRACE_EVENT_VFORK   2
>    #define PTRACE_EVENT_CLONE   3
> >  #define PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC	4
> >  #define PTRACE_EVENT_VFORK_DONE	5
> >  #define PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT	6
> > +#define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP	7
> 
> Er... these constants were corresponding exactly to
> bit positions in ptrace options which enable them:
> 
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD   0x00000001
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACEFORK      0x00000002
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORK     0x00000004
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE     0x00000008
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC      0x00000010
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORKDONE 0x00000020
> #define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT      0x00000040
> 
> For example, PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC is 4th bit, PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC is 4.
> 
> If we'd define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP as 7, any future added
> PTRACE_O_foo bit with value 0x00000080 will be unable
> to follow this convention.

I'm not sure how this will actually play out but currently planning on
adding more implicitly enabled events on SEIZE.

> I propose to define PTRACE_EVENT_STOP as 64 instead, leaving 64 low
> PTRACE_EVENT_foo constants for possible future PTRACE_O_foo bits.
> 
> [32 should be enough too, but I feel paranoid today :)]

But this might not be a bad idea.  Given that we also support 32bit
archs, going over 32 wouldn't help much tho.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/