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: <CAFiDJ5_gstXn-y8JSzi=gy+nRrrFqCaQA_R4CVg0+vhLz1EZPw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 10:54:31 +0800
From:	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>
To:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
Cc:	Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin.tang@...il.com>,
	Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Tobias Klauser <tklauser@...tanz.ch>,
	Walter Goossens <waltergoossens@...e.nl>,
	Linux-Arch <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 Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Ezequiel Garcia
<ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Hi Chung-Lin,

Your patch look good to me.
Do you have any problem to change the struct user_pt_regs based on
Ezequiel's suggestion?
If not, can you please resend the new patch.
Thanks.


Regards
Ley Foon
--
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/