linux-kernel - [PATCH 20/27] ptrace: arch_has_block

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:	Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:05:52 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: [PATCH 20/27] ptrace: arch_has_block_step


This defines the new macro arch_has_block_step() in linux/ptrace.h, a
default for when asm/ptrace.h does not define it.  This is the analog
of arch_has_single_step() for step-until-branch on machines that have
it.  It declares the new user_enable_block_step function, which goes
with the existing user_enable_single_step and user_disable_single_step.
This is not used yet, but paves the way to harmonize on this interface
for the arch-specific calls on all machines.

Signed-off-by: Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
---
 include/linux/ptrace.h |   37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/ptrace.h b/include/linux/ptrace.h
index a6effc8..dd8f751 100644
--- a/include/linux/ptrace.h
+++ b/include/linux/ptrace.h
@@ -154,7 +154,8 @@ int generic_ptrace_pokedata(struct task_struct *tsk, long addr, long data);
  *
  * This can only be called when arch_has_single_step() has returned nonzero.
  * Set @task so that when it returns to user mode, it will trap after the
- * next single instruction executes.
+ * next single instruction executes.  If arch_has_block_step() is defined,
+ * this must clear the effects of user_enable_block_step() too.
  */
 static inline void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *task)
 {
@@ -165,15 +166,43 @@ static inline void user_enable_single_step(struct task_struct *task)
  * user_disable_single_step - cancel user-mode single-step
  * @task: either current or a task stopped in %TASK_TRACED
  *
- * Clear @task of the effects of user_enable_single_step().  This can
- * be called whether or not user_enable_single_step() was ever called
- * on @task, and even if arch_has_single_step() returned zero.
+ * Clear @task of the effects of user_enable_single_step() and
+ * user_enable_block_step().  This can be called whether or not either
+ * of those was ever called on @task, and even if arch_has_single_step()
+ * returned zero.
  */
 static inline void user_disable_single_step(struct task_struct *task)
 {
 }
 #endif	/* arch_has_single_step */
 
+#ifndef arch_has_block_step
+/**
+ * arch_has_block_step - does this CPU support user-mode block-step?
+ *
+ * If this is defined, then there must be a function declaration or inline
+ * for user_enable_block_step(), and arch_has_single_step() must be defined
+ * too.  arch_has_block_step() should evaluate to nonzero iff the machine
+ * supports step-until-branch for user mode.  It can be a constant or it
+ * can test a CPU feature bit.
+ */
+#define arch_has_single_step()		(0)
+
+/**
+ * user_enable_block_step - step until branch in user-mode task
+ * @task: either current or a task stopped in %TASK_TRACED
+ *
+ * This can only be called when arch_has_block_step() has returned nonzero,
+ * and will never be called when single-instruction stepping is being used.
+ * Set @task so that when it returns to user mode, it will trap after the
+ * next branch or trap taken.
+ */
+static inline void user_enable_block_step(struct task_struct *task)
+{
+	BUG();			/* This can never be called.  */
+}
+#endif	/* arch_has_block_step */
+
 #endif
 
 #endif
-
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/