1 May 2006 15:51
Re: [uml-devel] [RFC] PATCH 3/4 - Time virtualization : PTRACE_SYSCALL_MASK
Daniel Jacobowitz <dan <at> debian.org>
2006-05-01 13:51:27 GMT
2006-05-01 13:51:27 GMT
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:49:56PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:28:46PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Ok, this gives us a definite proposal, which I finally like:
> >
> > * to exclude sys_tee:
> >
> > bitmask = 0;
> > set_bit(__NR_tee, bitmask);
> > ptrace(PTRACE_SET_NOTRACE, bitmask);
> >
> > * to trace only sys_tee:
> >
> > bitmask = 0;
> > set_bit(__NR_tee, bitmask);
> > ptrace(PTRACE_SET_TRACEONLY, bitmask);
>
> Yup, I like this.
I really recommend you not do this. One (better) suggestion earlier
was:
struct {
int bitmask_length;
int flags;
char bitmask[0];
};
The difference between this case and the sigprocmask example is that
the size of a sigset_t is very hard to change - it's a userspace ABI
break. If you want to model it after sigprocmask, don't look at the
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed