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: <54FE8C79.2000104@codesourcery.com>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:17:29 +0800
From:	Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>
To:	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
CC:	Chung-Lin Tang <chunglin.tang@...il.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 2015/3/10 10:54 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> 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?

Well, exposing the register names like that sort of defeats the purpose of
the PTR_* defines.

Judging from the overall trend of style in arch/*/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
across ports, I would prefer to stay with the array field.

Thanks,
Chung-Lin

--
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/