[Bug tapsets/20363] syscall return probes should provide a richer retstr

["dsmith at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20363

David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |dsmith at redhat dot com

--- Comment #1 from David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> ---
Technically this wouldn't be hard to do. The hardest part would be to decide on
a format for 'detailed_retstr' that works for all the syscalls. We've got
syscalls like:

- pipe(), the 2 file descriptors would be in detailed_retstr
- read(), the buffer of read characters would be in detailed_retstr
- ptrace(), that's fairly complicated to decode for detailed_retstr

I'm sure there are others to think about.

Perhaps the format would look something like "RETSTR (PARAM1=VALUE,
PARAM2=VALUE, ...):

- pipe(): "0 (filedes[0]=3, filedes[1]=4)"
- read(): "11 (buf="a1234567890")"
- ptrace(): each ptrace request would need a different format, something like:
    "123 (request=PEEKTEXT)", "0 (request=PTRACE_GETREGS, data=???)" (I'm
unsure
    here how we'd display the registers)

Would you think you'd like the 'retstr' value included in 'detailed_retstr' as
I've shown here or not? Any other thoughts on the format?

One more question to think about. Let's talk about a syscall that doesn't need
any extra info in 'detailed_retstr', like 'write()'. Would write()'s detailed
retstr look like: '0 ()' or just '0'?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.