On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > Zap 'ptrace(PT_READ_U, ...)' and 'ptrace(PT_WRITE_U, ...)' since they
> > are a really nasty interface that should have been killed long ago
> > when 'ptrace(PT_[SG]ETREGS' etc came along. The entity that they
> > operate on (struct user) will not be around much longer since it
> > is part-per-process and part-per-thread in a post-KSE world.
>
> Yeah I saw that before sending out my query. This should've
> waited until after KSE is in place.
>
> > the uarea is pretty much a shadow of its former self
> > The fields have been scattered across two structures.
> >
> > What is ups trying to find out?
>
> Signal handling state of the process being debugged (whether
> ignored/caught etc). I haven't dug deeper into it so I
> don't know why it wants that but it seems to be pretty deeply
> wired in.
>
> > There are other ways to get all the information in question.
>
> There isn't. I don't think procfs will give me that either.
> May be PT_{SET,GET}SIGSTATE should be added?
>
> BTW, what is being added to allow debugging a post-KSE world
> process?
I'm planning on extending Ptrace.
There will need to be a ptrace command to specify
1/ which thread you want future ptrace commands to control
(e.g. single step),
2/ What you want the OTHER threads to do (e.g run as normal or stop)
The READ_U should be replaced by a specific SIGSTATE command as you
suggest I think.
It only reads it right?
>
> -- bakul
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
