[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091130200056.GA11764@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:00:56 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, utrace-devel@...hat.com,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: powerpc: syscall_dotrace() && retcode (Was: powerpc: fork &&
stepping)
On 11/30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:15 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Yes, the asm should be changed. I suppose we could check if the result
> > of do_syscall_trace_enter is negative, and if it is, branch to the exit
> > path using r3 as the error code. Would that be ok ?
> >
> > Something like this:
>
> Note however that there's a trace exit too and that's normally the right
> place to alter the result don't you think ?
Yes, the result can be changed when the tracee reports syscall-exit.
Should powerpc allow this on syscall-entry? I do not know. x86 does,
and we have this test-case which assumes powerpc should allow too.
But when it comes to ptrace I can almost never know what was the
supposed behaviour/api.
Jan, Roland, what do you think?
Oleg.
--
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