From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 24/25] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 15:11:07 +0100
Message-ID: <20181210141107.GB4177@redhat.com>
References: <20181210042352.GA6092@altlinux.org>
 <20181210043126.GX6131@altlinux.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181210043126.GX6131@altlinux.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@altlinux.org>, Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, strace-devel@lists.strace.io, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On 12/10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>
> +struct ptrace_syscall_info {
> +	__u8 op;	/* PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_* */
> +	__u8 __pad0[3];
> +	__u32 arch;
> +	__u64 instruction_pointer;
> +	__u64 stack_pointer;
> +	__u64 frame_pointer;
> +	union {
> +		struct {
> +			__u64 nr;
> +			__u64 args[6];
> +		} entry;
> +		struct {
> +			__s64 rval;
> +			__u8 is_error;
> +			__u8 __pad1[7];
> +		} exit;
> +		struct {
> +			__u64 nr;
> +			__u64 args[6];
> +			__u32 ret_data;
> +			__u8 __pad2[4];
> +		} seccomp;
> +	};
> +};

Could you explain why ptrace_syscall_info needs __pad{0,1,2} ? I simply can't
understand why...

Otherwise the patch looks good to me. I am not going to discuss the API and
data layout, I am fine with anything which suits user-space needs.

I think the patch is technically correct, feel free to add

Reviewed-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>