Movatterモバイル変換
[0]ホーム
This is the mail archive of thelibc-alpha@sourceware.orgmailing list for theglibc project.
Re: [PING] [PATCH] sys/ptrace.h: remove obsolete Linux PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL constant
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>, Szabolcs Nagy <szabolcs dot nagy at arm dot com>, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, Stefan Liebler <stli at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "David S. Miller" <davem at davemloft dot net>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:10:48 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] sys/ptrace.h: remove obsolete Linux PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL constant
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20170808163039.GD4763@altlinux.org> <b325160a-dd28-37e6-95ab-e6c5ac92c378@redhat.com> <db561db4-990a-2ab6-4d0b-1adb8ceff3ed@redhat.com>
On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 6:39 AM, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:> On 08/08/2017 09:07 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:>> On 08/08/2017 12:30 PM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:>>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 09:20:17AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:>>>> On 08/07/2017 11:33 AM, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:>>>>> Hi,>>>>>>>>>> Looks like among those few who care about sys/ptrace.h nobody feels>>>>> experienced enough to review this change, so I'll go forward and commit it.>>>>>>>> Please tread carefully, and give the machine maintainer time to review, or>>>> directly TO: the machine maintainers and ask for review.>>>>>>>> Lack of a response does not mean you can assume consensus. Follow up with>>>> machine maintainers, even one ACK from a maintainer goes a long way to>>>> knowing there is support for your change.>>>>>> JFYI, PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL was an architecture-independent constant.>>>> Agreed, but the patch still touches machine-specific headers.>> I don't think our maintainer process confers exclusive code ownership,> quite the opposite actually. It's unblock-by-default for the> maintainer, not block-everyone-else.>> I looked at Dmitry's changes, and they look good to me. Please> reconsider your opposition.I also think this patch is good (and appropriate for backport to atleast the 2.26 release branch as well), based on the following checks:- PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL appears nowhere in the current Linux kernelsources, and lxr.free-electrons.com confirms Dmitry's statement thatit was already gone in version 3.4.0.- The oldest kernel still supported by glibc (version 3.2.0) alreadydefines PTRACE_SEIZE (with a different numeric value).- codesearch.debian.net finds no *uses* whatsoever of this identifier.The only hits are the definitions in glibc's various versions ofsys/ptrace.h, similar sets of definitions in uClibc's sys/ptrace.h andwhat appears to be the equivalent of sys/ptrace.h for the Go language,a thing called "kernel-patch-viewos" that appears to have a completecopy of kernel 3.1.5 embedded in it, and a program called "criu" thatdeemed it necessary to wrap sys/ptrace.h with its own header thatmakes sure every last constant from (some version of) linux/ptrace.his available, PTRACE_SEIZE_DEVEL included; the definition is the onlyappearance of that identifier in that package.I also observe that the only reason we have architecture-specificsys/ptrace.h for Linux is that we haven't gotten around to doing thework required to pull these constants from uapi/{linux,asm}/ptrace.h.That doesn't look like it would be hard, only tedious.I don't know Carlos's mind, but it seems likely to me that he didn'tmean to issue a hard NAK, he just wanted the flood of "nobody reactedto this patch during the freeze so I'm going to take that as assent"check-ins to slow down. I'm'a send another message about that.zw
[8]ページ先頭