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]

Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 15:48:28 +0800
From:	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>
To:	Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>
Cc:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
	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 Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
Okay, I will include your patch.

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/