ljmf00 added a comment. In D117928#3265583 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117928#3265583>, @mgorny wrote:
> Could you try replacing the new function with the old one and seeing if that > helps? Or alternatively, trying to build a kernel from the commit just before > that change and with that change. I can reproduce with the introduced change and by removing the `memset` call, I can write to the registers. I submitted a patch to the kernel mailing list. See the kernel bug tracker for discussion. I talked a bit about the flow of LLDB to discover XSAVE and FXSAVE, although correct me there if I'm wrong. In D117928#3266895 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117928#3266895>, @labath wrote: > If you want, I can try to create a patch for this, though it might take me a > couple of days to get around to it. I'm probably not getting the full picture but my idea on this is: if we propose this change due to this specific kernel regression is not worth it, although we should consider it if there is any other benefit on using `PTRACE_POKEUSER`. In D117928#3267103 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D117928#3267103>, @mgorny wrote: > To explain a bit, `PT_SETXMMREGS` exists because originally `PT_SETFPREGS` > used FSAVE format on i386, and this format didn't support setting XMM > registers. Newer CPUs support FXSAVE instead, and this is exposed via > `PT_SETFPREGS` on amd64 and `PT_SETXMMREGS` on i386. Ok, makes sense. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D117928/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D117928 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
