[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130314200221.GA4751@openwall.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:02:21 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: strace
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:52:05PM +0400, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:17:21PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On i686, it fails. It prints lots of restart_syscall() lines instead of
> > the actual syscall info.
>
> Does it happen with i686 strace running under x86_64 or i686 kernel?
Both of my tests today were under i686 host kernels. One was on host
system (and newer kernel), the other OpenVZ container (and older kernel).
I did not test this on x86_64 host today. Perhaps you're right and it'd
work fine there, which is why we did not notice this earlier.
> restart_syscall is syscall number 0. Could the difference between older
> and newer asm/ptrace.h versions be so fatal?
Without looking into this myself, I don't know.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
