From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oleg Nesterov Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ptrace: save the type of syscall-stop in ptrace_message Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:03:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20181129150327.GC10645@redhat.com> References: <20181128130439.GB28206@altlinux.org> <20181128130601.GC28206@altlinux.org> <20181128134913.GC30395@redhat.com> <20181128140533.GF28206@altlinux.org> <20181128142006.GE30395@redhat.com> <20181128152346.GG28206@altlinux.org> <20181128221125.GA2800@altlinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: "Dmitry V. Levin" , Kees Cook , Jann Horn , Michael Ellerman , Elvira Khabirova , Eugene Syromiatnikov , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Linux API , Ingo Molnar , strace-devel@lists.strace.io List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 11/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > I don't like any of this at all. Can we please choose a sensible API > design and let the API drive the implementation instead of vice versa? I too do not understand your concerns... > ISTM the correct solution is to add some new state to task_struct for > this. Sure we can do this. I have argued with the previous version not because the new member blows the task_struct. Although I think it is better to avoid this if possible. But this doesn't affect the API. Yes, this version uses ->ptrace_message but I think this is _good_ exactly because it is already visible to userspace, so if debugger only needs to distinguish syscall entry/exit it can simply use PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG without PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO. > If we're concerned about making task_struct bigger, I have a > half-finished patch to factor all the ptrace tracee state into a > separate struct. I even sent the patch(es) which does this several years ago ;) Oleg.