2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>: > > * Frédéric Weisbecker <fweis...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2009/1/29 Ingo Molnar <mi...@elte.hu>: >> >> >> >> Several people talked me about utrace and gave some examples about it in >> >> this discussion. The Api is very convenient to fetch syscall numbers, >> >> arguments and return values. And the hooks are done in the generic core >> >> code, so it is arch independent. >> >> >> >> The only drawback I can see is that it is not yet merged upstream, in >> >> need of in-kernel users. If it only depends on this condition, we could >> >> be these users... >> >> >> >> What do you think? >> > >> > sure - how do the minimal bits/callbacks look like which enable syscall >> > tracing?
I know you are talking about the only necessary bits from utrace to have the syscalls tracing. But I can't answer you better than would the utrace people. And actually I'm not sure the utrace bits for syscall tracing can be isolated from the rest of its core. Anyway, I will let the utrace guy answer to it :-) >> There is a very straightforward example provided by Ananth in there: >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/28/59 > > I mean, how does the infrastructure patch look like - what code does this > add to the kernel - just to get the syscall tracing bits. Lets get some > progress here - it's clear that tracing syscalls is good, we just need to > do it and look at actual patches. > > Ingo >
