[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jLBWiVieCkMFTboi5tEYw40O=-3_nH4jnMgKGQCrE6f1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 08:44:18 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"roland@...k.frob.com" <roland@...k.frob.com>,
"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote:
>>
>> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is
>> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead
>> > the other.
>>
>> I suspect the current approach was taken because it follows the same scheme
>> as 32-bit ARM. If both methods are sufficient (Kees would have a better idea
>> than me on that), then I don't have a strong preference.
>
> Using the regset would probably address Oleg's comment, and would keep the
> implementation architecture specific. You could even share the NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL
> number, but I don't know if there any downsides to doing that.
That's fine by me -- I only want an interface. :) I think it'd be nice
to keep it the same between arm32 and arm64, but using a specific
regset does seem to be the better approach.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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