* Jim Keniston jkeni...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 09:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
I think the best solution for user probes (by far) is to use a simplified
in-kernel instruction emulator for the few common probes instruction.
(Kprobes
already partially decodes x86
Title: option-portage
Si le message ne s'affiche pas visualisez la version en
ligne
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 08:52 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
That said, I also suspect that people should still look seriously at
simply just improving ptrace. For example, I suspect that the biggest
problem with ptrace is really just the signalling, and that creating a
new
extension for
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
like returning a fd to poll() on ? :-)
Well, there's the possibility of async polling (rather than the
synchronous wait that ptrace forces now), but there are other advantages
to having a connection model - like not having to look up the
On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:55 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Jim Keniston jkeni...@us.ibm.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 09:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
Yes, emulating push %ebp would buy us a lot of coverage for a lot of apps
on x86 (but see below**). [...]
...
[...] Even
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:55:02AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
...
Lets compare the two cases via a drawing. Your current uprobes submission
does:
[kernel] do probe thing single-step trap
^| ^ |
|v |
