Re: [RFC PATCH] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 11/07, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure I understand you... I do not like "compat" too, but this patch uses
> > is_compat/etc and I agree with any naming.
>
> My point is: returning a value to user code that is:
>
> 0 if the kernel and tracee are 32-bit
> 0 if the kernel and tracer are 64-but
> 1 if the kernel is 64-bit and the tracer is 32-bit
> ? If the tracer is arm64 ILP32
>
> Is not a good design.  And 32-bit builds of strace will not appreciate it.

Sure, I agree.

> While oddly named, audit_arch fits the bill nicely, and we already
> require it to have the right semantics for seccomp support.

Again, I agree, and I even mentioned PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP.


This reminds me about in_ia32_syscall/TS_COMPAT problems... The 1st one is
get_nr_restart_syscall, I'll try to re-send the fix tomorrow.

Another problem is in_compat_syscall() in get_unmapped_area() paths, it can
return the addr > TASK_SIZE for uprobed 32-bit task.

There was something else but I forgot...

Oleg.