On 12/09, Christian Brauner wrote: > > >We can > >add PTRACE_DETACH_ASYNC, but this makes me think that PTRACE_GETFD has > >nothing > >to do with ptrace. > > > >May be a new syscall which does ptrace_may_access() + get_task_file() > >will make > >more sense? > > > >Oleg. > > Once more since this annoying app uses html by default... > > But we can already do this right now and this is just an improvement. > That's a bit rich for a new syscall imho... I agree, and I won't really argue... but the changelog in 2/4 says The requirement that the tracer has attached to the tracee prior to the capture of the file descriptor may be lifted at a later point. so may be we should do this right now? plus this part @@ -1265,7 +1295,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(ptrace, long, request, long, pid, unsigned long, addr, } ret = ptrace_check_attach(child, request == PTRACE_KILL || - request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT); + request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT || + request == PTRACE_GETFD); actually means "we do not need ptrace, but we do not know where else we can add this fd_install(get_task_file()). Oleg.
