Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181121165806.07da7c98@akathisia>
In-Reply-To: <20181121165806.07da7c98@akathisia>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 21 Nov 2018 14:56:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrV3TPCkYyhoLLcikXVeF-RdZUuLTCvKReK3Qb9LSS9Csw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] ptrace: add PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request
To:     Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@altlinux.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
        Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        strace-devel@lists.strace.io
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Please cc linux-api@vger.kernel.org for future versions.

On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 7:58 AM Elvira Khabirova
<lineprinter@altlinux.org> wrote:
>
> struct ptrace_syscall_info {
>         __u8 op; /* 0 for entry, 1 for exit */

Can you add proper defines, like:

#define PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTRY 0
#define PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT 1
#define PTRACE_SYSCALL_SECCOMP 2

and make seccomp work from the start?  I'd rather we don't merge an
implementation that doesn't work for seccomp and then have to rework
it later.

>         __u8 __pad0[7];
>         union {
>                 struct {
>                         __s32 nr;

__u64 please.  Syscall numbers are, as a practical matter, 64 bits.
Admittedly, the actual effects of setting the high bits are unclear,
and seccomp has issues with it, but let's not perpetuate the problem.

>                         __u32 arch;
>                         __u64 instruction_pointer;
>                         __u64 args[6];
>                 } entry_info;
>                 struct {
>                         __s64 rval;
>                         __u8 is_error;
>                         __u8 __pad1[7];
>                 } exit_info;
>         };
> };

Should seccomp events use entry_info or should they just literally
supply seccomp_data?