On 07/03/25(Fri) 09:14, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> It seems like a huge change in behaviour to have nested operations here.
> 
> I'm suspicious that it only requires these two changes, and anticipate
> the entire mechanism can't be moved from singular to nested with just
> this.  That prompts the questions:  How did we get here, and is this
> viable recursion???  I strongly suspect no.

I believe we get there because some ddb/dtrace code is now relying on
copyin(9) which overrides `pcb_onfault'.  I don't think using copyin(9)
inside ddb/dtrace code is viable.  We cannot inspect the kernel it we
rely on its APIs.

Christian, could we use a ddb/dtrace version of copyin(9) that would not
mess with `pcb_onfault'?