Re: [PATCH] ptrace.2: Add details about usage of PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ahhhh hello everyone! Give me 20 minutes and I will make the changes as requested!

By the way this patch is the very first patch I do through emails! I am using git format-patch and git send-email, is it okay for me to be opening a new thread for each change you request? Or should I send the new patches in the same thread as responses?

Is there a universal standard or is it per project? Any guidance shall be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

-- fvalasiad --

On 27/2/23 00:05, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
Hi Dmitry,

On 2/26/23 23:03, Dmitry V . Levin wrote:
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 10:58:02PM +0100, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
[...]
+.B PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO
+is limited to type
+.B PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_NONE
+unless
+.B PTRACE_O_TRACESYSGOOD
+option is set before the corresponding ptrace stop has occurred.
You should say
.BR ptrace ()
right?
Or is unformatted ptrace common in this page?
Or just say "syscall stop".
Sure, that would work.  BTW, se prefer system call over syscall
(there's not much consistency regarding that, but let's try to achieve it).

Thanks,

Alex





[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Documentation]     [Netdev]     [Linux Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux