On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 05:38:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: [...] > > + syscall_set_nr(child, regs, nr); > > + /* > > + * If the syscall number is set to -1, setting syscall arguments is not > > + * just pointless, it would also clobber the syscall return value on > > + * those architectures that share the same register both for the first > > + * argument of syscall and its return value. > > + */ > > + if (nr != -1) > > + syscall_set_arguments(child, regs, args); > > Thanks, much better than I tried to suggest in my reply to V1. > > But may be > > if (syscall_get_nr() != -1) > syscall_set_arguments(...); > > will look a bit more consistent? I'm sorry, but I didn't follow. As we've just set the syscall number with syscall_set_nr(), why would we want to call syscall_get_nr() right after that to obtain the syscall number? -- ldv
