linux-kernel - Re: [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]

Message-Id: <20071128235834.A34AB26F8E7@magilla.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:58:34 -0800 (PST)
From:	Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>
To:	David Wilder <dwilder@...ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/27] ptrace: arch_has_block_step

> Roland McGrath wrote:
> <snip>
> > 
> > +#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)
> 
> should this be #define arch_has_block_step()		(0)

Oops, yes it should.


Thanks,
Roland
-
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/