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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <550051D4.7040508@vanguardiasur.com.ar>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:31:48 -0300
From:	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>
To:	Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
	Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>
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 03/11/2015 04:48 AM, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> 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.
> 

That'd be great.

I'll wait until Linus takes the change, and then will submit the strace
support to strace mailing list.

Thanks for the help!
-- 
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/