On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:47:53AM +0100, Renzo Davoli wrote: >> Why not introduce a new request for PTRACE_VM but use *tags* in 'addr'? >> We are taking risks of breaking the existing code. :) > >Yes, there is a minimal risk to break some code. This is a con. >On the other side there are two main pros for this proposal: >1- the code is now extremely simple
Why adding a new request for ptrace is harder? I don't think so. :) >2- if we define a different tag for syscall (e.g. PTRACE_VM), we need also >different tags for PTRACE_VM_SINGLESTEP, PTRACE_VM_SINGLEBLOCK and maybe >others in the future. >Using the addr field we don't need this multiplication of tags >(and we could soon delete PTRACE_SYSEMU and PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP). > Yes? We could also remove PTRACE_SYSEMU* if we had PTRACE_VM to replace it. I would like to hear more from you on this point. Thanks. -- Do what you love, f**k the rest! F**k the regulations! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel
