On 03.11.2011, at 02:34, David Gilbert <david.gilb...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 2 November 2011 19:23, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote: >> There are a number of files in /proc that expose host information >> to the guest program. This patch adds infrastructure to override >> the open() syscall for guest programs to enable us to on the fly >> generate guest sensible files. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> --- >> linux-user/syscall.c | 52 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- >> 1 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c >> index 9f5da36..38953ba 100644 >> --- a/linux-user/syscall.c >> +++ b/linux-user/syscall.c >> @@ -4600,6 +4600,52 @@ int get_osversion(void) >> return osversion; >> } >> >> +static int do_open(void *cpu_env, const char *pathname, int flags, mode_t >> mode) > > Once you open the pandoras-box that is emulating /proc, I think you'll > probably > need to hook it in more places and be more general; although you may > well get away > with it for this particular case. > > Isn't it better to put the filename interception code somewhere more general > so that it can also be misused by other calls - e.g. stat(). We can move it when we get there :). > > I guess you're also going to need to be able to do /proc/pid/* instead > of /proc/self; > something is bound to use that. I was hoping to get away with a bit less involving. Sure, we could actually open the pandora box of emulating all of /proc, but I really don't want to go down that route. Since all these files already do exist on the host view, I don't think we have to fake stat(). The file size will be wrong either way. So yes, eventually we might have to use the big sledge hammer of emulating all of /proc, but as long as I can refrain from it I will :). It's just a _lot_ of work. Alex > > Dave
