Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:25:48 -0600 From: Eric Badger <eric@badgerio.us> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net>, des@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: procfs ctl interface Message-ID: <ae46578a-b8f5-066d-9864-0cb381be2caf@badgerio.us> In-Reply-To: <f3d29c53-b947-21a9-769e-e1098039f606@vangyzen.net> References: <451312a7-9ae9-c5a1-4153-2268039c5942@badgerio.us> <f3d29c53-b947-21a9-769e-e1098039f606@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 02/25/2017 09:47 AM, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > On 02/24/2017 19:43, Eric Badger wrote: >> I started working on a change that will perturb procfs' ctl interface >> to some >> degree. In looking closer at procfs, it seems like it has been pretty >> well >> broken for use as a debugging interface since at least 9.3 (the oldest >> system I >> have handy). Is there any reason to maintain this interface at all? If >> anything, >> it should perhaps be made into an alternate front end for ptrace() >> rather than >> being entirely separate, but I'm not sure I see the value in that. > > As I recall, the last in-tree consumer was gcore, but attilio@ switched > it to ptrace in r199805. > > If nobody mentions a significant consumer, garbage-collecting it sounds > good to me. > > Eric To clarify, I'm only targeting (for now) the string interface "ctl" special file, not the ioctl interface on "mem" nor the other special files (e.g. "regs"). Items in that last category seem to still have legitimate (or at least convenient) uses, in that you can inspect a process without needing to attach to it. Here's what I plan to do: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D9802 CC des@, procfs maintainer. Eric
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ae46578a-b8f5-066d-9864-0cb381be2caf>