Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] ptrace: introduce PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO request

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 05:38:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
[...]
> > +	syscall_set_nr(child, regs, nr);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If the syscall number is set to -1, setting syscall arguments is not
> > +	 * just pointless, it would also clobber the syscall return value on
> > +	 * those architectures that share the same register both for the first
> > +	 * argument of syscall and its return value.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (nr != -1)
> > +		syscall_set_arguments(child, regs, args);
> 
> Thanks, much better than I tried to suggest in my reply to V1.
> 
> But may be
> 
> 	if (syscall_get_nr() != -1)
> 		syscall_set_arguments(...);
> 
> will look a bit more consistent?

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow.  As we've just set the syscall number with
syscall_set_nr(), why would we want to call syscall_get_nr() right after
that to obtain the syscall number?


-- 
ldv