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...
Otherwise the patch looks good to me. I am not going to discuss the API and
data layout, I am fine with anything which suits user-space needs.
I think the patch is technically correct, feel free to add
Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
