Dear Utrace-devel
With your permission, we would like to show you how to get
better positioning and more traffic on the web. If you are
interested, reply us and we'll do a complementary no charge
site assessment.
Sincerely,
Melanie Deville
Spark Media
On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And I didn't check make xcheck, I guess it still crashes the kernel.
Yes it does. I am almost sure the bug should be trivial, but
somehow can't find find it.
Found the trivial but nasty problem.
On 11/17, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/16, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
And I didn't check make xcheck, I guess it still crashes the kernel.
Yes it does. I am almost sure the bug should be trivial, but
somehow can't find find it.
Found the trivial but nasty
On 11/16, Roland McGrath wrote:
The change we talked about before seems simple enough and should cover this
without new kludges in the ptrace layer. I did this (commit f19442c).
I will reply to this in the next email, I'd like to discuss
another minor related issue first.
I noticed this
On 11/16, Roland McGrath wrote:
Whatever temporary hacks are fine by me one way or the other.
They will just be coming out later along with assorted other cleanup.
We certainly do want to get this right in the utrace layer.
Yes. But imho it is always good to test/review the patches against
On 11/16, Roland McGrath wrote:
But this smp_rmb() in task_utrace_struct() is only needed when the
caller does something like
if (task_utrace_flags(tsk))
do_something(task_utrace_struct());
If you look at where task_utrace_struct() is used, it's basically always
like
but now I think perhaps it would be better to send
ptrace-change-tracehook_report_syscall_exit-to-handle-stepping_fix
to akpm right now:
--- a/include/linux/tracehook.h
+++ b/include/linux/tracehook.h
@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ static inline __must_check int tracehook
