Re: [PATCH 03/10] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:49:58AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> A couple interface questions that just crossed my mind:
> 
>  - on a fork/vfork/clone, if PTRACE_EVENT_FORK|VFORK|CLONE have been
>    enabled, will the tracer still see the new child stop with a
>    SIGSTOP, or will it see a PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT?

This won't change, so SIGSTOP although we probably want to improve it
such that this can be distinguished from SIGTRAP from userland.

>  - is PTRACE_INTERRUPT on PTRACE_TRACEME-traced-child planed to
>    be allowed (for convenience)?
>    A PTRACE_O_TRACEINTERRUPT, or some such PTRACE_SETOPTIONS
>    option might be necessary to get PTRACE_EVENT_INTERRUPT instead
>    of SIGSTOP in the point above.

I'm currently leaning toward deprecating PTRACE_TRACEME.  If a task
can PTRACE_TRACEME, it may as well just do pause(2) and let the parent
SEIZE it.

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/