Re: [RFC] [PATCH 1/7] User Space Breakpoint Assistance Layer (UBP)

[Avi Kivity]

On 01/18/2010 01:44 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 13:01 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
> > You've made it clear that you don't like it, but not why.
> >
> > The kernel already manages the user's address space (except for
> > MAP_FIXED which is unreliable unless you've already reserved the address
> > space).  I don't see why adding a vma for debugging is so horrible.
> >      
> Well, the kernel only does what the user (and loader) tell it through
> mmap().

What I meant was that the kernel chooses the addresses (unless you go 
the MAP_FIXED way).  From the user's point of view, there is no change 
in behaviour: the kernel picks an address.  If the constraints have 
changed (because we reserve a range), that doesn't affect the user.

> Other than that we never (except this VDSO thing) inject vmas,
> and I see no reason to start doing that now.
>    

Maybe you place no value on uprobes.  But people who debug userspace 
likely will see a reason.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/