linux-kernel - Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?

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: <54FDD2D8.8090509@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:05:28 -0300
From:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
To:	Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin.tang@...il.com>,
	Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>,
	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>
CC:	Walter Goossens <waltergoossens@...e.nl>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	"nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org" <nios2-dev@...ts.rocketboards.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?



On 03/09/2015 02:02 PM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
> On 2015/3/10 12:54 AM, Chung-Lin Tang wrote:
>> It appears that some of the ways nios2 has organized the
>> ucontext/pt_regs/etc. are remnants of the pre-generic code, some
>> basically because the port was based off m68k.
>>
>> I've re-organized the headers a bit: nios2/include/asm/ucontext.h is
>> deleted, and re-definition of struct sigcontext now allows use of
>> uapi/asm-generic/ucontext.h directly.  Note that the reorg, despite
>> effectively renaming some fields, is still binary compatible. I'll
>> probably update the corresponding glibc definitions later.
>>
>> struct pt_regs is now not exported, and all exported register sets are
>> now supposed to follow the 49 register set defined as in GDB now.
>>
>> Tobias, Ley Foon, how do you think this looks?
> 
> Sorry, accidentally attached unrelated GCC patch instead, this one's the
> correct one.
> 

Looks good. I'm wondering if...

+/* User structures for general purpose registers.  */
+struct user_pt_regs {
+	__u32		regs[49];
 };

Can we expose the registers explicitly here? Like this:

struct user_pt_regs {
	__u32 r0;
	__u32 r1;
	...
	__u32 sp;
	__u32 gp;
	__u32 estatus;
};

It looks self-documenting and thus easier to use.
-- 
Ezequiel Garcia, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
--
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/