On 11/07, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2018, at 8:44 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Not sure I understand you... I do not like "compat" too, but this patch uses > > is_compat/etc and I agree with any naming. > > My point is: returning a value to user code that is: > > 0 if the kernel and tracee are 32-bit > 0 if the kernel and tracer are 64-but > 1 if the kernel is 64-bit and the tracer is 32-bit > ? If the tracer is arm64 ILP32 > > Is not a good design. And 32-bit builds of strace will not appreciate it.
Sure, I agree. > While oddly named, audit_arch fits the bill nicely, and we already > require it to have the right semantics for seccomp support. Again, I agree, and I even mentioned PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP. This reminds me about in_ia32_syscall/TS_COMPAT problems... The 1st one is get_nr_restart_syscall, I'll try to re-send the fix tomorrow. Another problem is in_compat_syscall() in get_unmapped_area() paths, it can return the addr > TASK_SIZE for uprobed 32-bit task. There was something else but I forgot... Oleg.
