Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 13:26:04 -0500 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: Shawn Webb <lattera@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Disabling ptrace Message-ID: <CAPyFy2DnHOAwpdK7VQB-MFEwqjGTQki83tWUeLoP8qrci0Yjug@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3368390.qHnOScdmzK@shawnwebb-laptop> References: <20141230111941.GE42409@kib.kiev.ua> <20141230140709.GA96469@stack.nl> <3368390.qHnOScdmzK@shawnwebb-laptop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 December 2014 at 10:38, Shawn Webb <lattera@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm curious what the use case was that brought this up. And why the requester > thinks it's actually useful. I had one use case for this: LLDB's test suite includes a test for the debugger handling failure from ptrace(PT_ATTACH, ...), and the test used the Linux/OS X version of the change under discussion. As it turns out that case can be easily tested by just having another ptrace consumer already attached, and the author of the test in LLDB switched to that approach instead.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2DnHOAwpdK7VQB-MFEwqjGTQki83tWUeLoP8qrci0Yjug>