[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161123150435.GA30459@sasha-lappy>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 15:04:27 +0000
From: alexander.levin@...izon.com
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"scientist@...com" <scientist@...com>,
"glider@...gle.com" <glider@...gle.com>,
"andreyknvl@...gle.com" <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com" <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
"daniel.vetter@...ll.ch" <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] abi_spec: hooks into syscall to allow pre and post
checking
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:57:02PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 17:37:01 +0000
> > alexander.levin@...izon.com wrote:
> >> #define __SYSCALL_DEFINEx(x, name, ...) \
> >> + extern const struct syscall_spec syscall_spec##name; \
> >> asmlinkage long sys##name(__MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> >> __attribute__((alias(__stringify(SyS##name)))); \
> >> static inline long SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >> asmlinkage long SyS##name(__MAP(x,__SC_LONG,__VA_ARGS__)) \
> >> { \
> >> - long ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >> + long ret; \
> >> + abispec_check_pre(&syscall_spec##name, __MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >> + ret = SYSC##name(__MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >> + abispec_check_post(&syscall_spec##name, ret, __MAP(x,__SC_CAST,__VA_ARGS__)); \
> >
> > Do you want this for DEFINE0() too? Or does this not care about system
> > calls with no arguments?
>
> This should care about syscalls without args:
> - we still may want to check return values
> - something like debug tracing would like to print them
> - there may also be some side effects (or absence of side effects)
> that we may want to check
Yes, agreed, I just missed that detail in my implementation.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
Powered by blists - more mailing lists