On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 09:34 +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:You are right, I will rework the patch and send it again, it has a lot of
+ if ((current->ptrace & PT_SELF)
+ && (regs->orig_ax != __NR_rt_sigreturn)
+ && (regs->orig_ax != __NR_ptrace)) {
+ if (!entryexit) {
+ struct siginfo info;
+
+ memset(&info, 0, sizeof(struct siginfo));
+ info.si_signo = SIGSYS;
+ info.si_code = SYS_SYSCALL;
+ info.si_addr = (void *) regs->orig_ax;
+ send_sig_info(SIGSYS, &info, current);
+ }
+ return 1; /* Skip system call, deliver signal. */
+ }
The indenting here looks messed up.
Also, there looks to be a pretty substantial amount of copy-and-pasteYes, thank you it is a good tip.
code in those little if()s. It's only going to get worse as we add more
architectures. If there's ever a little buglet in that bit of code, or
we need to tweak it it some way, it'll be a bitch to fix.
For instance, if you have a little arch-independent helper like this:
static inline int is_self_ptracing(unsigned long syscall_reg)
{
if (!(current->ptrace & PT_SELF))
return 0;
if (syscall_reg == __NR_rt_sigreturn)
return 0;
if (syscall_reg == __NR_ptrace)
return 0;
return 1;
}
You can call it like this:
if (is_self_ptracing(regs->gprs[2]))
...
if (is_self_ptracing(regs->orig_ax))
...
if (is_self_ptracing(regs->orig_rax))
Something similar can probably be done for the siginfo construction.
You should basically try and think of ways to abstract this stuff everyYes, you are right too, I will rework the patch description too.
single time you touch arch code.
Why don't you also mention why you really want this feature. That's
missing from the description.
-- DaveThanks for the comments, I rework the patch.