On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:39:35AM +0200, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote: > * Linus Torvalds | 2020-04-27 21:28:14 [-0700]: > > >> I hate to say this, but I’m not convinced that asking the gdb folks is > >> the right approach. GDB has an ancient architecture and is > >> *incredibly* buggy. I’m sure ptrace is somewhere on the pain point > >> list, but I suspect it’s utterly dwarfed by everything else. > > > >You may be right. However, if gdbn isn't going to use it, then I > >seriously don't think it's worth changing much. > > > >It might be worth looking at people who don't use ptrace() for > >debugging, but for "incidental" reasons. IOW sandboxing, tracing, > >things like that. > > > >Maybe those people want things that are simpler and don't actually > >need the kinds of hard serialization that ptrace() wants. > > > >I'd rather add a few really simple things that might not be a full > >complement of operations for a debugger, but exactly because they > >aren't a full debugger, maybe they are things that we can tell are > >obviously secure and simple? > > Okay, to sum up the the whole discussion: we go forward with Jann's proposal > by simple adding PTRACE_ATTACH_PIDFD and friends. This is the minimal invasive > solution and the risk of an potenial security problem is almost not > present[TM]. > > Changing the whole ptrace API is a different beast. I rather believe that I > see Linus Linux successor rather than a ptrace successor. > > I am fine with PTRACE_ATTACH_PIDFD!
If this is enough for you use-case then we should make due with my initial suggestion, yes. I'd be fine with adding this variant. I initially thought that we'd likely would need to support a few more but I don't think we want to actually; there's a bunch of crazy stuff in there. Christian
