On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 06:55:29AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 3:56 PM Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:56:57PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Please cc linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for future versions.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:58 AM Elvira Khabirova wrote:
> > > >
> > > > struct ptrace_syscall_info {
> > > > __u8 op; /* 0 for entry, 1 for exit */
> > >
> > > Can you add proper defines, like:
> > >
> > > #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTRY 0
> > > #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT 1
> > > #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_SECCOMP 2
> > >
> > > and make seccomp work from the start? I'd rather we don't merge an
> > > implementation that doesn't work for seccomp and then have to rework
> > > it later.
> >
> > What's the difference between PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP and syscall-entry-stop
> > with regards to PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request? At least they have the
> > same entry_info to return.
>
> I'm not sure there's any material difference.
In that case we don't really need PTRACE_SYSCALL_SECCOMP: op field
describes the structure inside the union to use, not the ptrace stop.
> > As long as implementation (ab)uses ptrace_message to tell one kind of stop
> > from another, it can distinguish syscall-entry-stop and syscall-exit-stop
> > from each other and from many other kinds of stops, but it cannot
> > distinguish PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP from e.g. PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
>
> Hmm. PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO should fail for PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT, I think.
Unless we can change PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP to set some higher bits of
ptrace_message (beyond SECCOMP_RET_DATA) which is very unlikely because
it would qualify as an ABI change, this would require an additional field
in struct task_struct because ptrace_message wouldn't be enough
to distinguish PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP from PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.
--
ldv
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
