[PATCH v2 4/4] samples: Add example of using PTRACE_GETFD in conjunction with user trap
oleg at redhat.com
Mon Dec 9 20:46:35 UTC 2019
On 12/09, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >We can
> >add PTRACE_DETACH_ASYNC, but this makes me think that PTRACE_GETFD has
> >to do with ptrace.
> >May be a new syscall which does ptrace_may_access() + get_task_file()
> >will make
> >more sense?
> Once more since this annoying app uses html by default...
> But we can already do this right now and this is just an improvement.
> That's a bit rich for a new syscall imho...
I agree, and I won't really argue...
but the changelog in 2/4 says
The requirement that the tracer has attached to the tracee prior to the
capture of the file descriptor may be lifted at a later point.
so may be we should do this right now?
plus this part
@@ -1265,7 +1295,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(ptrace, long, request, long, pid, unsigned long, addr,
ret = ptrace_check_attach(child, request == PTRACE_KILL ||
- request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT);
+ request == PTRACE_INTERRUPT ||
+ request == PTRACE_GETFD);
actually means "we do not need ptrace, but we do not know where else we
can add this fd_install(get_task_file()).
More information about the Containers