[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150116155923.GK12302@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 15:59:23 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Roman Peniaev <r.peniaev@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: entry-common: fix forgotten set of
thread_info->syscall
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:57:02AM +0900, Roman Peniaev wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > One interesting thing I noticed (which is unchanged by this series),
> > but pulling ARM_r7 during the seccomp ptrace event shows __NR_poll,
> > not __NR_restart_syscall, even though it was a __NR_restart_syscall
> > trap from seccomp. Is there a better place to see the actual syscall?
>
> As I understand we do not push new r7 to the stack, and ptrace uses the
> old value.
And why should we push r7 to the stack? ptrace should be using the
recorded system call number, rather than poking about on the stack
itself.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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