On 12/11, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>
> > > Still can't understand... are you saying that without (say) __pad2[4]
> > > sizeof(ptrace_syscall_info) or offsetofend(ptrace_syscall_info, seccomp)
> > > will depend on arch? Or what? I am just curious.
> >
> > Yes, without padding these sizes will depend on architecture:
>
> > $ cat t.c
> > #include <linux/types.h>
> > int main() {
> > struct s {
> > __u64 nr;
> > __u64 args[6];
> > __u32 ret_data;
> > };
> > return sizeof(struct s);
> > }
> >
> > $ gcc -m64 -Wall -O2 t.c && ./a.out; echo $?
> > 64
> > $ gcc -m32 -Wall -O2 t.c && ./a.out; echo $?
> > 60
> >
> > This happens because __u64 has 32-bit alignment on some 32-bit
> > architectures like x86.
> >
> > There is also m68k where __u32 has 16-bit alignment.
OK, thanks,
> Said that, I think it would be better if PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO
> did not take these trailing pads into account, e.g.
>
> - return offsetofend(struct ptrace_syscall_info, seccomp);
> + return offsetofend(struct ptrace_syscall_info, seccomp.ret_data);
> ...
> - return offsetofend(struct ptrace_syscall_info, exit);
> + return offsetofend(struct ptrace_syscall_info, exit.is_error);
>
> The reason is that it would allow to fill these trailing pads with
> something useful in the future.
Agreed.
But this way everything looks even more confusing. To me it would be
better to simply remove these pads, but I won't insist.
Oleg.
