On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon will.deacon@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) {
return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
int ret;switch (request) {case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data;ret = 0;break;default:ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);break;}return ret;}
I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface?
Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially since only these architectures implement this at the moment.
Why? It should be really straightforward to do this in core code from the get-go and experience shows that, if we don't do it now, it will never happen.
This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which will have those changes isolated, etc.
But this doesn't need to touch any other architectures...
Will