[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2019 17:11:40 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using
ptrace_syscall_enter hook
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:32 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>
> Now that we have a new hook ptrace_syscall_enter that can be called from
> syscall entry code and it handles PTRACE_SYSEMU in generic code, we
> can do some cleanup using the same in syscall_trace_enter.
>
> Further the extra logic to find single stepping PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP
> in syscall_slow_exit_work seems unnecessary. Let's remove the same.
I wasn't cc'd on the whole series, so I can't easily review this. Do
you have a test case to make sure that emulation still works? Are
there adequate tests in tools/testing/selftests/x86? Do they still
pass after this patch?
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists