From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Dec 27 00:25:09 1994 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id AAA10611 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 00:25:09 -0800 Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.34]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id IAA10602 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 08:24:56 GMT Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.6.9/8.6.9) id TAA05057; Tue, 27 Dec 1994 19:21:44 +1100 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 19:21:44 +1100 From: Bruce Evans Message-Id: <199412270821.TAA05057@godzilla.zeta.org.au> To: hackers@freebsd.org, u923168@student.canberra.edu.au Subject: Re: ptrace Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk >A quick question. Is there anything in FreeBSD which does what the >PTRACE_SYSCALL option should do in ptrace(2)? I've poked around in the Not that I know if. >sources (PTRACE_ATTACH and PTRACE_DETACH, though broken, can be acheived >through procfs.. but no PTRACE_SYSCALL) but havn't found anything yet. procfs is broken too (regs are for curproc). >Or do I have to use PTRACE_SINGLESTEP and pray to the BSD gods? (yuk) >(still not sure how I'd detect syscalls, but shouldn't be *that* hard) How could PTRACE_SINGLESTEP be used other than to trace the whole process at glacial speed? It would be easier to implement PTRACE_SYSCALL. Which spelling of the ptrace numbers is least nonstandard, FreeBSD's PT_FOO or Linux's PTRACE_VERBOSEFOO? Bruce