Re: linux-next: add utrace tree
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: Fri Jan 22 2010 - 17:00:12 EST
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Finally, I don't know how to address the logic of "if a feature
> requires utrace, that's a bad argument for utrace" and at the same
> time "you need to show a killer app for utrace". What could possibly
> satisfy both of those constraints? Please advise.
The point is, the feature needs to be a killer feature. And I have yet to
hear _any_ such killer feature, especially from a kernel maintenance
The "better ptrace than ptrace" is irrelevant. Sure, we all know ptrace
isn't a wonderful feature. But it's there, and a debugger is going to have
support for it anyway, so what's the _advantage_ of a "better ptrace
interface"? There is absolutely _zero_ advantage, there's just "yet
another interface". We can't get rid of the old one _anyway_.
And the seccomp replacement just sounds horrible. Using some tracing
interface to implement security models sounds like the worst idea ever.
And like it or not, over the last almost-decade, _not_ having to have to
work with system tap has been a feature, not a problem, for the kernel
So what's the killer feature?
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/