[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANaxB-x86NUAYG1F2+-uOj676weVOdy9aKnmxjaHTuNxek28gg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 18:51:07 -0800
From: Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
krisman@...labora.com, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, adobriyan@...il.com, corbet@....net,
shuah@...nel.org, Gregory Price <gregory.price@...verge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ptrace,syscall_user_dispatch: add a getter/setter for
sud configuration
On Sun, Jan 22, 2023 at 8:22 PM Gregory Price <gourry.memverge@...il.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG 0x4210
> +#define PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH_CONFIG 0x4211
> +struct syscall_user_dispatch_config {
> + __u64 mode;
> + __s8 *selector;
> + __u64 offset;
> + __u64 len;
> + __u8 on_dispatch;
Sorry, I didn't notice this in the previous version. on_dispatch looks
like an internal
property and I don't see how we can stop a process with ptrace when on_dispatch
is set to a non-zero value. I am not sure that we need to expose it to
user-space.
Other than that, the patch looks good to me.
Thanks,
Andrei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists