On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 02:52:40PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/10, Michal Suchánek wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 01:40:43PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > > > I can only say that ptrace users do want to skip the syscall and set the > > > return value on entry. > > > > > > See > > > [PATCH v5 1/2] ptrace: add PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO syscall skipping > > > support > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > > > > > The changelog explains that currently this doesn't work because > > > among the arches which define HAVE_ARCH_TRACEHOOK (at least) arch/mips is > > > broken in this regard. > > > > Or it could be documented that setting the return value has to be done > > in the exit trace, and that would than work on any architecture AFAICT. > > Well, ptrace users know the problem. And this what they have to do > currently. > > > With ppc and s390 using the same register for the syscall number and > > syscall return value it's very much impossible to poke the return value > > on entry into a register using the generic register access function. As > > of now there is no place to store the value ot of the return value > > outside of the registers, either. > > I know nothing about ppc and s390. Can't comment right now. > > > And the current PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO indeed sets the syscall nr and > > arguments on entry and the syscall return value on exit, that > > disctincion is implemented. > > > > Not sure how the patchset you point out is relevant, it only adds > > changes in the exit case. > > No. It allows to skip-and-set-retval on PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP.
And if it was hooked correctly to seccomp indicating to seccomp that the syscall needs to be skipped it could work but it is not, and will fail on ppc. Thanks Michal > > But ENTRY -> EXIT transition is not yet allowed due to the problems > above. > > Oleg. >
