On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 03:11:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 12/10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
quoted
+struct ptrace_syscall_info {
+ __u8 op; /* PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_* */
+ __u8 __pad0[3];
+ __u32 arch;
+ __u64 instruction_pointer;
+ __u64 stack_pointer;
+ __u64 frame_pointer;
+ union {
+ struct {
+ __u64 nr;
+ __u64 args[6];
+ } entry;
+ struct {
+ __s64 rval;
+ __u8 is_error;
+ __u8 __pad1[7];
+ } exit;
+ struct {
+ __u64 nr;
+ __u64 args[6];
+ __u32 ret_data;
+ __u8 __pad2[4];
+ } seccomp;
+ };
+};
Could you explain why ptrace_syscall_info needs __pad{0,1,2} ? I simply can't
understand why...
I suppose the idea behind the use of these pads was to make the structure
arch-independent.
I don't think we really need to keep it exactly the same on all
architectures - the only practical requirement is to avoid any compat
issues, but I don't mind keeping the structure arch-independent.
--
ldv