[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1164220580.12365.8.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:36:20 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: supriya kannery <supriyak@...ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org
Subject: Re: Incorrect order of last two arguments of ptrace for requests
PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, SETREGS, GETFPREGS, SETFPREGS
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:23 +0530, supriya kannery wrote:
> In ptrace, when request is PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, SETREGS, GETFPREGS and
> SETFPREGS, order of the last two arguments is not correct.
>
> General format of ptrace is ptrace (request, pid, addr, data). For the
> above mentioned request ids in ppc64, if we use ptrace like
>
> long reg[32];
> ptrace (PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, pid, 0, ®[0]);
>
> the return value is always -1.
>
> If we exchange the last two arguments like,
>
> ptrace (PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, pid, ®[0], 0);
>
> it works!
>
> This is because PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS option for powerpc is implemented
> such that general purpose
> registers of the child process get copied to the address variable
> instead of data variable. Same is
> the case with other PPC request options PPC_PTRACE_SETREGS, GETFPREGS
> and SETFPREGS.
>
> Prepared a patch for this problem and tested with 2.6.18-rc6 kernel.
> This patch can be applied directly to 2.6.19-rc3 kernel.
A more appropriate place to send this would be the linux-ppc development
list.
--
dwmw2
View attachment "ppc_ptrace_params.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3449 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists