[PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc: use common ptrace_syscall_enter hook to handle _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -3278,35 +3278,29 @@ long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  
>  	user_exit();
>  
> -	flags = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags) &
> -		(_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> -
> -	if (flags) {
> -		int rc = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> +	if (unlikely(ptrace_syscall_enter(regs))) {
> +		/*
> +		 * A nonzero return code from tracehook_report_syscall_entry()
> +		 * tells us to prevent the syscall execution, but we are not
> +		 * going to execute it anyway.
> +		 *
> +		 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution. We want to
> +		 * avoid clobbering any registers, so we don't goto the skip
> +		 * label below.
> +		 */
> +		return -1;
> +	}
>  
> -		if (unlikely(flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * A nonzero return code from
> -			 * tracehook_report_syscall_entry() tells us to prevent
> -			 * the syscall execution, but we are not going to
> -			 * execute it anyway.
> -			 *
> -			 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution. We want
> -			 * to avoid clobbering any registers, so we don't goto
> -			 * the skip label below.
> -			 */
> -			return -1;
> -		}
> +	flags = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags) & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE;

Why do we need READ_ONCE() with this change?

And now that we change a single bit "flags" doesn't look like a good name.

Again, to me this patch just makes the code look worse. Honestly, I don't
think that the new (badly named) ptrace_syscall_enter() hook makes any sense.

Oleg.