Bodo Stroesser wrote:
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
So (!entryexit & regs->gprs[2] < 0) translates to the debugger changed
the
guest
system call to something illegal on the first of the two ptrace calls. So
the
patch doesn't hurt for normal, non-ptraced operation but it might hurt
other
users of ptrace.
I don't think, it hurts. If a debugger willingly sets the syscall number
to -1, what would happen without the patch?
The kernel will set the result -ENOSYS into grps[2]. So, even if trap
still indicates a syscall and a signal is pending, no syscall restarting
will be done.
With the patch, a debugger would observe changed behavior of the kernel
*only*, if it writes the syscall number to -1 on the first syscall
interception and then writes the result to ERESTARTXXXXX on the second,
while at the same time a signal is pending for the debugged process.
I assumed, that non of the current users of ptrace exactly does this.
If I'm wrong here, the patch *really* is bad.
Addendum:
To avoid any conflicts as far as possible, the -1 written and checked
as the syscall number to reset trap could be replaced by some magic
value, which then should defined in asm/ptrace.h
In terms of performance, any method, that allows to reset trap
without an additional ptrace call, is fine.
Bodo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
