Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] Add support to catch groups of syscalls.

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
<gabriel@krisman.be> wrote:
> Using -g to specify syscall groups, as Sergio said, has also the
> advantage of providing us with an intuitive command to list available
> syscall groups, by saying "catch syscall -g" with no arguments.

That can't work as "catch syscall" catches all syscalls, and it would
be confusing to have "catch syscall" catch all syscalls whereas "catch
syscall -g" just lists syscall groups.

> So, my vote goes to using '-g' for each syscall group we want to
> catch. Is that ok for you, guys?

Would you still allow "catch syscall open -g network"?
I'm not really comfortable with that (far more so than "catch syscall
open network-group").
If you want to require -g at the front, and thus disallow catching
both syscalls and syscall groups in the same command then that would
be fine with me.
Still need a solution for listing them.  Arguably since we don't
provide a way to list syscalls (sigh, modulo the hack I showed, which
should be fixed so that it no longer works anyways :-)), providing a
way to list syscall groups is for a separate patch.  Kudos if you
still want to provide a way to list syscalls and groups though.