Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > The documentation may have been wrong for some time on some archs, it > > > feels like making PT_WRITE_D and PT_WRITE_I equivalent was deemed > > > useful at one point. Given that Free and NetBSD document the same > > > guarantee, I personally don't feel comfortable changing that, but YMMV. > > > > This is a trap designed to make code work on amd64 and fail on hppa. > > But if kettenis cares more about hppa than most people, maybe we should let > > him be the one to decide. :) > > I'm not really worried about this; ptrace(2) is only used by gdb and > people writing exploits ;).
Hi guys, I see Ted did commit an update to the docs, the root issue is still present though and is adressed in the latest version of my patch, what's the status on that one?
