[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Compat 32-bit syscall entry from 64-bit task!?
    On 01/25/2012 07:36 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
    > Not sure this is really better, but there is another idea. Currently we
    > have PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD to avoid the confusion with the real SIGTRAP.
    > Perhaps we can add PTRACE_O_TRACESYS_VERY_GOOD (or we can look at
    > PT_SEIZED instead) and report TS_COMPAT via ptrace_report_syscall ?

    May I beg to don't rely on PTRACE_SYSCALL for anything new?
    You can't PTRACE_SINGLESTEP and PTRACE_SYSCALL simultaneously. Think of
    gdb single-stepping all the way for some reason (software watchpoints, for ex.),
    while at the same time wanting to catch syscalls.

    As Roland suggested, replacing PTRACE_SYSCALL with PTRACE_O_TRACE_SYSCALL_{ENTRY,EXIT}
    and PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_{ENTRY,EXIT} would be superior, syscall tracing wise.

    Pedro Alves

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-25 21:25    [W:0.019 / U:0.976 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site