In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:10:00 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I have been working on for a while, and imagining for much longer,
> replacing ptrace from the ground up. This is what I've come up with so
> far, and I'm looking for some reactions on the direction.
At least three different sets of people want to extend the syscall
tracing. Jeff Dike posted a patch that lets you supply a bitmask of
syscalls to trace. Renzo Davoli posted one that lets you decide, after
trapping entrance to a syscall, whether to skip the trap that would
normally be done on exit from the same call. Charles P. Wright also
had a similar patch. I think this needs to be done at the utrace
level -- a tracing engine couldn't add that on its own (could it?)
Renzo Davoli also posted a patch to allow "batching" of ptrace requests
and Systemptap really needs this, too. AFAICT this can be done by writing
a custom engine.
And BTW patches 1 and 2 never made it to the list. The ones on your
server (http://redhat.com/~roland/utrace/) don't apply cleanly due to
whitespace damage but that can be fixed by stripping trailing whitespace
from the kernel files patch(1) complains about.
--
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
