[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181210162131.GG14149@altlinux.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:21:32 +0300
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
strace-devel@...ts.strace.io, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 24/25] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >
> > +struct ptrace_syscall_info {
> > + __u8 op; /* PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_* */
> > + __u8 __pad0[3];
> > + __u32 arch;
> > + __u64 instruction_pointer;
> > + __u64 stack_pointer;
> > + __u64 frame_pointer;
> > + union {
> > + struct {
> > + __u64 nr;
> > + __u64 args[6];
> > + } entry;
> > + struct {
> > + __s64 rval;
> > + __u8 is_error;
> > + __u8 __pad1[7];
> > + } exit;
> > + struct {
> > + __u64 nr;
> > + __u64 args[6];
> > + __u32 ret_data;
> > + __u8 __pad2[4];
> > + } seccomp;
> > + };
> > +};
>
> Could you explain why ptrace_syscall_info needs __pad{0,1,2} ? I simply can't
> understand why...
I suppose the idea behind the use of these pads was to make the structure
arch-independent.
I don't think we really need to keep it exactly the same on all
architectures - the only practical requirement is to avoid any compat
issues, but I don't mind keeping the structure arch-independent.
--
ldv
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists