Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      05 Oct 2001 01:11:38 +0200
From:      Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>
To:        Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>
Cc:        arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Removing ptrace(2)'s dependency on procfs(5)
Message-ID:  <xzpofnnatlh.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <20011004230154.4A0D63809@overcee.netplex.com.au>
References:  <20011004230154.4A0D63809@overcee.netplex.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> >  - move procfs_rwmem() from src/sys/fs/procfs/procfs_mem.c into
> >    src/sys/kern/sys_process.c or some other convenient location where
> >    both ptrace(2) and procfs(5) can access it (and also move its
> >    prototype to a convenient header file).
> It seems to be mostly VM code, perhaps it should be somewhere in vm/*,
> perhaps vm/vm_glue.c ?

procfs_rwmem() was originally derived from code which still resides
(#if 0'd out) in sys_process.c.  That's why I felt it was the most
logical place to move it to.

> Would it not make more sense to just make ptrace_{read|write}_*regs()
> in machdep.c rather than have ptrace go via procfs functions and back to
> machdep.c?

That's exactly what I'm saying.

In case you're confused, the PROCFS_ACTION() stuff in procfs_machdep.c
has nothing to do with procfs, it's just a poorly-named macro that
evaluates its arguments and does some error checking.

> This doesn't have to be done all at once.  The patch that you posted after
> this one looks like a good start so far.

Yep - at some point the functions should be renamed, and the
prototypes should probably go into <sys/ptrace.h> instead of the bogus
<sys/debug.h> I added.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpofnnatlh.fsf>