Subject: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request

From: [email-masked] (Oleg Nesterov)
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 15:04:05 +0100

On 11/07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -853,11 +853,6 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,
>  				       datap);
>  			break;
>  
> -		case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:
> -			task_thread_info(child)->syscall = data;
> -			ret = 0;
> -			break;
> -
>  #ifdef CONFIG_CRUNCH
>  		case PTRACE_GETCRUNCHREGS:
>  			ret = ptrace_getcrunchregs(child, datap);
> diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
> index 54e7522..d7048fa 100644
> --- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -1001,6 +1001,12 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long request,
>  		break;
>  	}
>  #endif
> +
> +#ifdef PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL
> +	case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:
> +		ret = syscall_set_nr(child, task_pt_regs(child), data);
> +		break;
> +#endif

I too do not understand why it makes sense to move PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL into
the common kernel/ptrace.c.

To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr()
is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means that this code
should live in arch_ptrace().

In any case, I think it doesn't make sense to pass task_pt_regs(child), this
helper can do this itself if it needs struct pt_regs.

Oleg.