PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTRY/EXIT

2010-01-16 Thread Ali Polatel
Hello,

Do you guys plan to add ptrace requests possibly named
PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTRY and PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT at some point akin to
FreeBSD's¹ PT_TO_SCE and PT_TO_SCX?

¹: 
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ptraceapropos=0sektion=0manpath=FreeBSD+8.0-RELEASEformat=ascii

-- 
Regards,
Ali Polatel


pgp4bnIgQv6gX.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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

2010-01-16 Thread Bryan Donlan
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Jim Keniston jkeni...@us.ibm.com wrote:

 4. Emulation removes the need for the XOL area, but requires pretty much
 total knowledge of the instruction set.  It's also a performance win for
 architectures that can't do #3.  I see kvm implemented on 4
 architectures (ia64, powerpc, s390, x86).  Coincidentally, those are the
 architectures to which uprobes (old uprobes, with ubp and xol bundled
 in) has already been ported (though Intel hasn't been maintaining their
 ia64 port).  So it sort of comes down to how objectionable the XOL vma
 (or page) really is.

On x86 at least, wouldn't one option to be to run the instruction to
be emulated in CPL ('ring') 2, from a XOL page above the user-kernel
split, not accessible to userspace at CPL 3? Linux hasn't
traditionally used anything other than CPL 0 and CPL 3 (plus CPL 1 on
Xen), but it would seem to avoid many of the problems here - it's
invisible to normal userspace code and so doesn't pollute userspace
memory maps with kernel-private stuff, but since it's running at a
higher CPL than the kernel, we can still protect kernel memory and
protect against privileged instructions.