linux-kernel - Re: [RFC/PATCH] Implement new PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 19 Jan 2014 00:48:57 -0200
From:	Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@...hat.com>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Tom Tromey <tromey@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Implement new PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_{ENTER,EXIT}

On Friday, January 10 2014, Oleg Nesterov wrote:

> So suppose that gdb does ptrace(PTRACE_SINGLESTEP) and the tracee
> executes the "syscall" insn. What it should report?
[...]
> But what should syscall-exit do? Should it still report SIGSEGV as
> it currently does, or should it report _SYSCALL_EXIT instead (if
> PTRACE_O_SYSCALL_EXIT of course), or should it report both?

Both only if _SYSCALL_EXIT is set.  Otherwise, stick to the current
behavior, I guess.  Isn't it what my current patch does, by the way?  I
didn't test this scenario so I'm just guessing here...

-- 
Sergio
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/