From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752632Ab2AZTT7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:19:59 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36205 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751182Ab2AZTT4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2012 14:19:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:44:38 +0100 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Denys Vlasenko Cc: Linus Torvalds , Indan Zupancic , Andi Kleen , Jamie Lokier , Andrew Lutomirski , Will Drewry , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor@redhat.com, Roland McGrath Subject: Re: Compat 32-bit syscall entry from 64-bit task!? Message-ID: <20120126184438.GA25629@redhat.com> References: <20120125193635.GA30311@redhat.com> <201201260032.57937.vda.linux@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201201260032.57937.vda.linux@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/26, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 January 2012 20:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > We can add the new events, > > > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_EXIT > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_EXIT > > We can get away with just the first one. > (1) It's unlikely people would want to get native sysentry events but not compat ones, > thus first two options can be combined into one; Confused... Sure, we need the single option, or we could even report this unconditionally if PT_SEIZED. I meant the different PTRACE_EVENT_* codes only. > (2) syscall exit compat-ness is known from entry type - no need to indicate it; and > (3) if we would flag syscall entry with an event value in wait status, then syscall > exit will be already distinquisable. Well, if we add _ENTRY then it looks more consistent to report _EXIT as well even if it is not that useful. Doesn't matter. Nobody seem to like this, and afaics Linus has the good arguments against the arch-independent "consolidation". Oleg. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: Compat 32-bit syscall entry from 64-bit task!? Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:44:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20120126184438.GA25629@redhat.com> References: <20120125193635.GA30311@redhat.com> <201201260032.57937.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Indan Zupancic , Andi Kleen , Jamie Lokier , Andrew Lutomirski , Will Drewry , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, john.johansen@canonical.com, serge.hallyn@canonical.com, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, pmoore@redhat.com, eparis@redhat.com, djm@mindrot.org, segoon@openwall.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jmorris@namei.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@linux-foundation.org, khilman@ti.com, borislav.petkov@amd.com, amwang@redhat.com, ak@linux.intel.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, gregkh@suse.de, dhowells@redhat.com, daniel.lezcano@free.fr, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, olofj@chromium.org, mhalcrow@google.com, dlaor To: Denys Vlasenko Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201201260032.57937.vda.linux@googlemail.com> Sender: linux-security-module-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 01/26, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > On Wednesday 25 January 2012 20:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > We can add the new events, > > > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_ENTRY > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_EXIT > > PTRACE_EVENT_SYSCALL_COMPAT_EXIT > > We can get away with just the first one. > (1) It's unlikely people would want to get native sysentry events but not compat ones, > thus first two options can be combined into one; Confused... Sure, we need the single option, or we could even report this unconditionally if PT_SEIZED. I meant the different PTRACE_EVENT_* codes only. > (2) syscall exit compat-ness is known from entry type - no need to indicate it; and > (3) if we would flag syscall entry with an event value in wait status, then syscall > exit will be already distinquisable. Well, if we add _ENTRY then it looks more consistent to report _EXIT as well even if it is not that useful. Doesn't matter. Nobody seem to like this, and afaics Linus has the good arguments against the arch-independent "consolidation". Oleg.