[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7056596.KRbB42JIuZ@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:01:55 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pinskia@...il.com,
Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com, schwab@...e.de,
Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, agraf@...e.de, klimov.linux@...il.com,
broonie@...nel.org, jan.dakinevich@...il.com,
ddaney.cavm@...il.com, bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com,
philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/21] arm64: ptrace: handle ptrace_request differently for aarch32 and ilp32
On Friday 08 January 2016 02:34:31 Yury Norov wrote:
> +long compat_arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, compat_long_t request,
> + compat_ulong_t caddr, compat_ulong_t cdata)
> +{
> + if (is_a32_compat_task())
> + return compat_a32_ptrace(child, request, caddr, cdata);
> +
> + return compat_ptrace_request(child, request, caddr, cdata);
> +}
> +
Looking at this again, I think we can avoid this runtime check
if we duplicate the compat_sys_ptrace function and make a special one
for a32 that is copied from the regular handler and but calls
compat_a32_ptrace directly. Or maybe make a separate handler for
arm64-ilp32 if that is smaller.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists