[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141112110047.GB26437@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 11:00:47 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"roland@...k.frob.com" <roland@...k.frob.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
"keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr()
> > is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means that this code
> > should live in arch_ptrace().
>
> Thinking of Oleg's comment above, it doesn't make sense neither to define generic
> NT_SYSTEM_CALL (user_regset) in uapi/linux/elf.h and implement it in ptrace_regset()
> in kernel/ptrace.c with arch-defined syscall_(g)set_nr().
>
> Since we should have the same interface on arm and arm64, we'd better implement
> ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) locally on arm64 for now (as I originally submitted).
I think the regset approach is cleaner. We already do something similar for
TLS. That would be implemented under arch/arm64/ with it's own NT type.
Will
--
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