[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070214215123.57ef2d4a.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:51:23 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@...oo.it>
Cc: user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
stable@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [uml-devel] x86_64: fix 2.6.18 regression -
PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS should be accepted
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:43:41 +0100 Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@...oo.it> wrote:
> > I sent an equivalent patch in earlier today:
> Doh! Interesting this timing...
>
> > Index: linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c
> > +++ linux-2.6/arch/x86_64/ia32/ptrace32.c
> > @@ -239,6 +239,8 @@ asmlinkage long sys32_ptrace(long reques
> > __u32 val;
> >
> > switch (request) {
> > + case PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS:
> > + request = PTRACE_SETOPTIONS;
> > case PTRACE_TRACEME:
> > case PTRACE_ATTACH:
> > case PTRACE_KILL:
> >
> > I change the request so that PTRACE_OLDSETOPTIONS doesn't need to
> > propogate any further. However, it is present in include/asm-x86_64,
> > so I guess that counts as being part of the x86_64 ABI. That being
> > the case, I guess my patch can be dropped in favor of this one.
>
> It is handled in ptrace_request, unless there are include problems. I'm going
> to reboot and test mine for any remaining problem.
Whatever happens, please ensure that the final fix makes it into -stable
as well. Jeff's version of this patch wasn't cc'ed to stable@...nel.org.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists