[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181128134913.GC30395@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 14:49:14 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
strace-devel@...ts.strace.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ptrace: save the type of syscall-stop in
ptrace_message
On 11/28, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>
> +/*
> + * These values are stored in task->ptrace_message by tracehook_report_syscall_*
> + * to describe current syscall-stop.
> + *
> + * Values for these constants are chosen so that they do not appear
> + * in task->ptrace_message by other means.
> + */
> +#define PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY 0x80000000U
> +#define PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_EXIT 0x90000000U
Again, I do not really understand the comment... Why should we care about
"do not appear in task->ptrace_message by other means" ?
2/2 should detect ptrace_report_syscall() case correctly, so we can use any
numbers, say, 1 and 2?
If debugger does PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG it should know how to interpet the value
anyway after wait(status).
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists