[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130225350.GA8096@altlinux.org>
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 01:53:50 +0300
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
strace-devel@...ts.strace.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ptrace: save the type of syscall-stop in
ptrace_message
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:29:21PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/30, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 03:47:43PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > > so that PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG users can easily tell
> > > > whether this new semantics is supported by the kernel or not.
> > >
> > > Yes. And how much this can help? Again, an application can trivially detect
> > > if this feature implemented or not, and it should do this anyway if it wants
> > > to (try to) use PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY/EXIT ?
> >
> > How an application can easily detect whether this feature is implemented?
>
> As I already said, it can just do ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO, NULL) ?
> If it returns -EIO then this feature is not implemented. Any other error
> code (actually EINVAL or EFAULT) means it is implemented.
Fair enough.
We can change PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY/EXIT to 1/2 if you like,
and document this trick somewhere.
--
ldv
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists