linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:48:20 +0200
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ptrace tree with the s390 tree

Hello, Martin.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 10:29:22AM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> I could special case ptrace with PTRACE_SINGLESTEP to return with
> TRAP_TRACE instead of TRAP_HWBKPT but that would be artificial.
> From the hardware perspective its the same.

It's true that ptrace is more dependent on arch details than most but
still part of user-facing API and maintaining API consistency should
haver higher priority, so I really think we should have well defined
generic set of event information all archs implement and then some
arch dependent exception where absolutely necessary.  The problem at
this stage tho is that I don't have much idea how to divide them.  Eh
well, let's see how it goes. :)

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/