There is also this (incomplete, untested) patch, which shows what it takes to add the new record type.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/2/345 On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <a...@ghostprotocols.net> wrote: > Em Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56:13AM -0600, David Ahern escreveu: >> On 8/22/12 10:29 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: >> >Adding the EXEC event, ditto. And I agree that while adding it we want >> >to do 1/2 as pre-requisite. >> >> maps should not be flushed on a COMM event, so that was a mistake. >> Given that what new information does an EXEC event provide? Same >> process id. A COMM event is generated on an exec, so the name change >> happens. Mappings are dropped prior to that - and there is no unmap >> event. That seems to be a missing piece. Maps are added which is >> handled by MMAP events. After that why is an exec event relevant? > > Please read the original discussion about it: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/13/545 > > - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/