On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Again, to me this patch just makes the code look worse. Honestly, I
> > > > don't
> > > > think that the new (badly named) ptrace_syscall_enter() hook makes any
> > > > sense.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Worse because we end up reading current_thread_info->flags twice ?
> >
> > Mostly because in my opinion ptrace_syscall_enter() buys nothing but makes
> > the caller's code less readable/understandable.
> >
> > Sure, this is subjective.
> >
>
> Based on what we have in that function today, I tend to agree. Will and
> Richard were in the opinion to consolidate SYSEMU handling
Well, personally I see no point... Again, after the trivial simplification
x86 does
if (work & (_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) {
ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
if (ret || (work & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU))
return -1L;
}
this looks simple enough for copy-and-paste.
> If there's a better way to achieve the same
I can only say that if we add a common helper, I think it should absorb
tracehook_report_syscall_entry() and handle both TIF's just like the code
above does. Not sure this makes any sense.
Oleg.
