[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181130112920.GD23670@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 12:29:21 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
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 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.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists