> > On a more general note, being new to DTrace I read the "how I patched a
> > system call for an errant third party program" description and deduced
> > that "fixing" programs (not just observing how they fail :-) is one of
> > its design purposes. Am I mistaken, or is changing parameters/return
Perry The Cynic wrote:
> Assigning to uregs[] (as per RFE 5005776) seems useful but much inferior
> to assigning to arg* (or args[]). Why be architecture-specific when you
> can be source-specific?
>
> On a more general note, being new to DTrace I read the "how I patched a
> system call for an err
Assigning to uregs[] (as per RFE 5005776) seems useful but much inferior to
assigning to arg* (or args[]). Why be architecture-specific when you can be
source-specific?
On a more general note, being new to DTrace I read the "how I patched a system
call for an errant third party program" descrip
This isn't possible today, but it's an RFE that has existed for quite
awhile.
Take a look at this old mail thread:
http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=36261θΆ₯
- ahl
On Feb 18, 2008, at 7:48 PM, Perry The Cynic wrote:
> (This question is about the Mac OS X version of dtrace, bu
(This question is about the Mac OS X version of dtrace, but I'm told they don't
do anything special there.)
I can use copyout() to modify the program's memory (with -w) and thus patch up
errant functions' memory in user space. But what if I need to patch a
function's return value, or its argume
