On Wed, Aug 09, 2017 at 01:16:19PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > "Dmitry V. Levin" <l...@altlinux.org> writes: > > Why should we pretend that execve/execveat don't return if they actually > > do return? > > If execve() succeeds, the calling image no longer exists... what does it > return *to* ?
It's returned to the new image and is available in the same register as on exiting other syscalls. > The man page even says: > > "execve() does not return on success," > > Hence the philosophical question - does the user *expect* to see "= 0" > in the trace when execve succeeds, or not? This "= 0" has been printed all these years, so it's quite logical to suppose that the user expects to see "= 0" and might be quite surprised to see something else like "= 11" instead. > Where in any of the traced > programs is that "= 0" available for inspection? It's in the register. On x86_64 it's %rax, on s390 it's %r2, etc. -- ldv
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
