Re: [PATCH 2/5] ptrace: implement PTRACE_SEIZE

From: Denys Vlasenko
Date: Sat Jun 18 2011 - 04:57:18 EST

On Saturday 18 June 2011 10:35, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 09:59:38AM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> > ...unless we plan to introduce PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP (with value 0x00000080)
> > which enables PTRACE_INTERRUPT and stop notifications independently
> > of PTRACE_SEIZE. Which would be very useful for e.g. strace.
> I know you're a big fan of those option flags but I don't really see
> the added value in making these behaviors optional rather than keeping
> things backward compatible - ie. introducing new event needed to be
> gated somehow so the O flags but SEIZE itself serves as a big gate
> anyway so I don't see much point in introducing multiple selectable
> behaviors. It's not like PTRACE_O_TRACESTOP is gonna make anything
> drastically easier or reduce significant amount of overhead.

I explained this already. strace code is a bit complex, and adding
more complexity so that it uses PTRACE_SEIZE if available, but PTRACE_ATTACH
if it is not, will add some PITA.

Considering that strace does not want PTRACE_SEIZE per se, it only wants
to have a way to properly see and handle group stops, having an option
to enable *only that functonality* without having to use PTRACE_SEIZE
will be useful for strace.

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