Re: [RFC] [PATCH 4/7] Uprobes Implementation

From: Frank Ch. Eigler
Date: Fri Jan 15 2010 - 08:11:02 EST

Hi -

> > > Then we can ditch the whole utrace muck as I see no reason to want to
> > > use that, whereas the ubp (given a sane name) looks interesting.
> >
> > Assuming you meant what you write, perhaps you misunderstand the
> > layering relationship of these pieces. utrace underlies uprobes and
> > other process manipulation functionality, present and future.
> Why, utrace doesn't at all look to bring a fundamental contribution to
> all that. If there's a proper kernel interface to install probes on
> userspace code (ubp seems to be mostly that) then I can use perf/ftrace
> to do the rest of the state management, no need to use utrace there.

> You can hardly force me to use utrace there, can you?

utrace is not a form of punishment inflicted upon the undeserving. It
is a service layer that uprobes et alii are built upon. You as a
potential uprobes client need not also talk directly to it, if you
wish to reimplement task-finder-like services some other way.

- FChE
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at