[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181108143342.GC9939@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 15:33:43 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>, rostedt@...dmis.org,
mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ldv@...linux.org,
esyr@...hat.com, luto@...nel.org, strace-devel@...ts.strace.io
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request
On 11/07, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I understand you... I do not like "compat" too, but this patch uses
> > is_compat/etc and I agree with any naming.
>
> My point is: returning a value to user code that is:
>
> 0 if the kernel and tracee are 32-bit
> 0 if the kernel and tracer are 64-but
> 1 if the kernel is 64-bit and the tracer is 32-bit
> ? If the tracer is arm64 ILP32
>
> Is not a good design. And 32-bit builds of strace will not appreciate it.
Sure, I agree.
> While oddly named, audit_arch fits the bill nicely, and we already
> require it to have the right semantics for seccomp support.
Again, I agree, and I even mentioned PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP.
This reminds me about in_ia32_syscall/TS_COMPAT problems... The 1st one is
get_nr_restart_syscall, I'll try to re-send the fix tomorrow.
Another problem is in_compat_syscall() in get_unmapped_area() paths, it can
return the addr > TASK_SIZE for uprobed 32-bit task.
There was something else but I forgot...
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists