From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Feb 25 01:44:50 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C36BCEC074 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 01:44:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@badgerio.us) Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C93DCEF1 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 01:44:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@badgerio.us) Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66C06C714 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:44:27 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:subject :to:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=yYXWHoUGikY85M0Dkijnzm7cb yU=; b=rGmwQUYZHDxKTtb3TB6XGc0qabKohiM/Pi6C8sr/leACbJesrmp59a4Pg 0i8SGLGJJ3NnJLp3uGaATnkQNzyySrx1XBxHOX4QWbJaLAMsXKgcxthMP6TKRDy/ MtLAEF28oA3XsSa9pyUC+Jzhgw39pVQ1nw4TxLecOTkh3+KcrY= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D0546C713 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (unknown [24.7.205.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1DCF6C712 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:44:26 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Badger Subject: procfs ctl interface To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Message-ID: <451312a7-9ae9-c5a1-4153-2268039c5942@badgerio.us> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:43:32 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F0EE3386-FAFB-11E6-923F-A7617B1B28F4-46178211!pb-smtp2.pobox.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=badgerio.us; h=from:subject:to:message-id:date:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2016-12.pbsmtp; bh=yYXWHoUGikY85M0Dkijnzm7cbyU=; b=itRoOqsWXlLB6SrFmRpTOp9rAO9Uv8f0NKJGFHdjq/gpt5dTRNEBaK+UjNCqh5oYmteU1OePeS5niU2scZrVvbsufOc5CPStCrYqHAxt/DPiKapNAFU04dhIi/2ggvb8WeAT0SWCEySK8bhY9hGteCC3Zcqya6TM8I3dbCzvPJ8= X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 01:44:50 -0000 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. Thanks for any thoughts/opinions. Eric From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Feb 25 15:47:32 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A199CED30A for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:47:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@vangyzen.net) Received: from smtp.vangyzen.net (hotblack.vangyzen.net [199.48.133.146]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B5B175 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:47:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@vangyzen.net) Received: from ford.home.vangyzen.net (unknown [76.164.15.242]) by smtp.vangyzen.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BB2156483; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:47:25 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: procfs ctl interface To: Eric Badger , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <451312a7-9ae9-c5a1-4153-2268039c5942@badgerio.us> From: Eric van Gyzen Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:47:22 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <451312a7-9ae9-c5a1-4153-2268039c5942@badgerio.us> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 15:47:32 -0000 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 From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Sat Feb 25 17:25:53 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E1ACED1A0 for ; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:25:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@badgerio.us) Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (pb-smtp2.pobox.com [64.147.108.71]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86F15D26; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:25:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from eric@badgerio.us) Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BF1A68DF9; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:25:51 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=subject:to :references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=xk7uHWjRrlLV Et6gnsz0DsffNbs=; b=x11f0EYbMJLYk0jPIe1Bf5M51nUAiwqF0nyRMpA8TicF gPct0kJlgH7MIXK2J5fNuc3Fr2lOY2qGKru4meOlTrE39Ledg8CvlgM0iYqkTPad eGxscDtYzZmZxO3gNd1oKEli2quCQvXIbZLWZK3Qpo6sKRBv3fu9jBoGpxy6Pg0= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 218E368DF7; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.103] (unknown [24.7.205.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 382B268DF6; Sat, 25 Feb 2017 12:25:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: procfs ctl interface To: Eric van Gyzen , des@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org References: <451312a7-9ae9-c5a1-4153-2268039c5942@badgerio.us> From: Eric Badger Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 11:25:48 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 73CD6D2A-FB7F-11E6-9557-A7617B1B28F4-46178211!pb-smtp2.pobox.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=badgerio.us; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=2016-12.pbsmtp; bh=xk7uHWjRrlLVEt6gnsz0DsffNbs=; b=UFTacjfBL/pgTyHNJxnWJ+cfVYhVStQA2r0wf3e9kl+JEAMab/6p2ZsKgsOHOxHE7MlhTnRICi3woyFQBJ/WHv79eTDfCm0bqj1dlmFFsBd6zRAxKuvxRci/EEbkCk4WDYJyKWcnSUCKFhLFq0iliIzSCIO+ILf/PD1DYLzItPw= X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:25:53 -0000 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