Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:58:13 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r304928 - in head/lib/libc: amd64/sys i386/sys sys Message-ID: <20160829065813.GP83214@kib.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <1595604.93PBdSz0kX@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201608272303.u7RN3N0D078505@repo.freebsd.org> <80ad9e03-74bc-8c99-666f-787772bef2b9@freebsd.org> <20160828015210.GI83214@kib.kiev.ua> <1595604.93PBdSz0kX@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 04:09:51PM -0700, John Baldwin wrote:
> OTOH, given that we explicitly documented it as not being true, I suspect
> any applications that are using ptrace() are going off the documentation, not
> the implementation artifact. Note that Linux's ptrace() documents the same
> requirement as before this change (caller is required to clear errno), so I
> doubt there is any actual software out there that expects the
> FreeBSD-specific behavior. Given that and the extra maintenance overhead of
> having to dink with errno in assembly on X architectures, I'd rather we keep
> the old language in the manpage and remove the 'errno' frobbing in the system
> call wrappers. To be honest, my first response to this commit was one of
> surprise that we modify errno directly as that is inconsistent with other
> system calls. (I haven't looked to see if any other system call wrappers
> modify errno for non-error cases.)
The problematic calls are PT_PEEK_I and PT_PEEK_D, as far as I understand.
I dug into the ptrace(2) consumers, I found a lot of things using
it which I would not expect to use, besides usual suspects of gdb
lldb libunwind reptyr etc. Most surprising was that even high-profile
consumers including gdb sometimes fail to check errno after PT_PEEK. On
the other hand, I did not found a case in gdb where errno is checked
after PT_PEEK but not zeroed before the syscall.
I almost agreed with you after the reading, but then I decided to look
into glibc just in case. What I found there is really fascinating.
>From glibc/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux:
res = INLINE_SYSCALL (ptrace, 4, request, pid, addr, data);
if (res >= 0 && request > 0 && request < 4)
{
__set_errno (0);
return ret;
}
#define PTRACE_PEEKTEXT 1
#define PTRACE_PEEKDATA 2
#define PTRACE_PEEKUSR 3
In the end, I might consider changing the ptrace wrappers into
consolidated C source, it would look like that
int
ptrace(int request, pid_t pid, caddr_t addr, int data)
{
errno = 0;
return (__sys_ptrace(request, pid, addr, data));
}
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160829065813.GP83214>