Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv-u2l5PoMzF/Vg9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2194 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 02:56:57PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Please cc linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org for future versions.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:58 AM Elvira Khabirova wrote:
> >
> > struct ptrace_syscall_info {
> >         __u8 op; /* 0 for entry, 1 for exit */
> 
> Can you add proper defines, like:
> 
> #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTRY 0
> #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT 1
> #define PTRACE_SYSCALL_SECCOMP 2
> 
> and make seccomp work from the start?  I'd rather we don't merge an
> implementation that doesn't work for seccomp and then have to rework
> it later.

What's the difference between PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP and syscall-entry-stop
with regards to PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request?  At least they have the
same entry_info to return.

As long as implementation (ab)uses ptrace_message to tell one kind of stop
from another, it can distinguish syscall-entry-stop and syscall-exit-stop
from each other and from many other kinds of stops, but it cannot
distinguish PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP from e.g. PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT.

> >         __u8 __pad0[7];
> >         union {
> >                 struct {
> >                         __s32 nr;
> 
> __u64 please.  Syscall numbers are, as a practical matter, 64 bits.
> Admittedly, the actual effects of setting the high bits are unclear,
> and seccomp has issues with it, but let's not perpetuate the problem.

I agree.  Although the implementation uses syscall_get_nr()
which returns int, this could potentially be fixed in the future.

> >                         __u32 arch;
> >                         __u64 instruction_pointer;
> >                         __u64 args[6];
> >                 } entry_info;
> >                 struct {
> >                         __s64 rval;
> >                         __u8 is_error;
> >                         __u8 __pad1[7];
> >                 } exit_info;
> >         };
> > };
> 
> Should seccomp events use entry_info or should they just literally
> supply seccomp_data?

It certainly can use entry_info.
I'd prefer to avoid using in uapi/linux/ptrace.h those types
that are defined in uapi/linux/seccomp.h.


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 137 bytes --]

-- 
Strace-devel mailing list
Strace-devel-3+4lAyCyj6AWlMsSdNXQLw@public.gmane.org
https://lists.strace.io/mailman/listinfo/strace-devel