[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1428635033.1554.49.camel@neuling.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:03:53 +1000
From: Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com>,
shuahkh@....samsung.com, james.hogan@...tec.com, avagin@...nvz.org,
Paul.Clothier@...tec.com, peterz@...radead.org, palves@...hat.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
dhowells@...hat.com, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, kirjanov@...il.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, oleg@...hat.com, davej@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sukadev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, sam.bobroff@....ibm.com
Subject: Re: [V6,1/9] elf: Add new powerpc specifc core note sections
On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 18:20 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 04/09/2015 04:41 AM, Michael Neuling wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 19:50 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> >> Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 23.03.2015
> >> 11:34:30:
> >>
> >>>> With that in mind, do we have a way to set the top 32bits of the MSR
> >>>> (which contain the TM bits) when ptracing 32 bit processes? I can't
> >>>> find anything like that in this patch set.
> >>>
> >>> No, we dont have that yet. When ptracing in 32-bit mode the MSR value
> >>> which can be viewed or set from the user space through PTRACE_GETREGS
> >>> PTRACE_SETREGS call is it's lower 32 bits only. Either we can club
> >>> the upper 32 bits of MSR as part of one of the ELF core notes we are
> >>> adding in the patch series or we can create one more separate ELF core
> >>> note for that purpose. Let me know your opinion on this.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure I understand this. I thought we had the following:
> >>
> >> - If the process calling ptrace is itself 64-bit (which is how GDB is
> >> built on all current Linux distributions), then PTRACE_GETREGS etc.
> >> will *always* operate on 64-bit register sets, even if the target
> >> process is 32-bit.
> >>
> >> - If the process calling ptrace is 32-bit, then PTRACE_GETREGS will
> >> operate on 32-bit register sets. However, there is a separate
> >> PTRACE_GETREGS64 / PTRACE_SETREGS64 call that will also provide
> >> the opportunity to operate on the full 64-bit register set. Both
> >> apply independently of whether the target process is 32-bit or
> >> 64-bit.
> >>
> >> Is this not correct?
> >
> > I think you're correct. We should be right. I'd forgotten about the
> > GET/SETREGS64 interfaces.
>
> In that case, is the patch series complete and okay ? Is there any thing
> else we need to verify other than waiting for the GDB test results which
> Edjunior has been working on. But I am not aware of the status on the GDB
> test development front.
I think we are good.
Mikey
>
> Edjunior,
>
> Do you have any updates ?
>
> Regards
> Anshuman
>
>
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists