Description
Description
While comparing traces from lurk
and strace
, I've noticed a couple of areas where lurk
could potentially enhance its output for better clarity and completeness. Specifically:
-
execve
Arguments Display: Theexecve
call inlurk
's output doesn't display the full details of the arguments, environment variables, and the command being executed. In contrast,strace
provides a more detailed view of these parameters, which is helpful for debugging and analysis purposes. -
Special Flags Interpretation: There are instances where
lurk
displays certain special values (e.g.,NULL
,AT_FDCWD
) as their raw numerical equivalents (e.g.,0x0
forNULL
,4294967196
forAT_FDCWD
). This raw display might not be immediately clear to users unfamiliar with these values' significance. In comparison,strace
translates these into more understandable representations.
Examples
-
lurk
output forexecve
:
[10063] execve("", "", "") = 0 -
strace
output forexecve
:
execve("/usr/sbin/ls", ["ls"], 0x7fff550534c0 /* 68 vars */) = 0 -
Special flags:
-
lurk
showsAT_FDCWD
as4294967196
. -
lurk
displaysNULL
as0x0
.
Suggested Enhancements
-
Enhance
execve
Output: It would be beneficial forlurk
to include more details in theexecve
output, similar tostrace
. This might include the full command, arguments 557F array, and environment variables block. -
Improve Special Flags Interpretation: For special constants like
AT_FDCWD
andNULL
, translating these values into their well-known symbolic names (or at least including the symbolic names alongside the raw values) would enhance readability and user understanding.
These enhancements could significantly improve the utility and user experience of lurk
for tracing system calls, especially for users transitioning from or comparing outputs with strace
.
Additional Information
- Lurk Version: 0.3.4
Thank you for considering these suggestions to improve lurk
.