Ulrich, Arnd, thank you for your discussions:
On 11/14/2014 07:25 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 13 November 2014 15:49:20 Ulrich Weigand wrote:
Arnd Bergmann wrote on 13.11.2014 11:21:28:
I have to admit that I don't really understand gdb internals, but from
a first look I get the imp
On Thursday 13 November 2014 15:49:20 Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann wrote on 13.11.2014 11:21:28:
>
> > I have to admit that I don't really understand gdb internals, but from
> > a first look I get the impression that it will just do the right thing
> > if you reuse NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL on
Arnd Bergmann wrote on 13.11.2014 11:21:28:
> I have to admit that I don't really understand gdb internals, but from
> a first look I get the impression that it will just do the right thing
> if you reuse NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL on ARM64 with the same semantics.
There's an interface between BFD and
On Thursday 13 November 2014 16:02:49 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 08:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 12 November 2014 11:13:52 Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:06:59AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On
On 11/12/2014 08:19 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 11:13:52 Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:06:59AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 11/07/2014 11:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:19:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 November 2014 11:13:52 Will Deacon wrote:
> > Just do arm64. We already have the dedicated request for arch/arm/.
>
> I wonder if we should define NT_ARM64_SYSTEM_CALL to the same value
> as NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL (0x307
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 11:13:52 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:06:59AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > >> On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:06:59AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>> To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and
> >
On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr()
is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means tha
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr()
> > is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means that this
> > code
> > should live in
Will,
On 11/07/2014 11:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -853,11 +853,6 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,
datap);
On 11/07/2014 09:27 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:03:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:30:53AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 07 November 2014 16:47:23 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
This patch
Not that I'm actually involved any more, but I'd endorse the user_regset
approach and not the new request. On many (most?) machines, it's already
part of the main integer regset (orig_rax et al) and adding another
mechanism is redundant. Using user_regset also means there won't be a word
of hidde
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote:
>>
>> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is
>> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead
>> > the other.
>>
>> I suspect the
On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote:
>
> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is
> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead
> > the other.
>
> I suspect the current approach was taken because it follows the same schem
On 11/07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -853,11 +853,6 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,
> datap);
> break;
>
> - case PTRACE_SET_SYS
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:44:07PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 12:11:19 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > We need this for arm64 and, si
On Friday 07 November 2014 12:11:19 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
> > > We need this for arm64 and, since all architectures seem to have a
> > > mechanism
> > > for setting
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 12:03:00PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:30:53AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Friday 07 November 2014 16:47:23 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > > This patch adds a new generic ptrace re
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 01:03:00PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
> > We need this for arm64 and, since all architectures seem to have a mechanism
> > for setting a system call via ptrace, moving it to generic code should make
> > sense for new
On Friday 07 November 2014 11:55:51 Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:30:53AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 07 November 2014 16:47:23 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > > This patch adds a new generic ptrace request, PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.
> > > It can be used to change a system call
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 09:30:53AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 16:47:23 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > This patch adds a new generic ptrace request, PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.
> > It can be used to change a system call number as follows:
> > ret = ptrace(pid, PTRACE_SET_SYSCAL
On Friday 07 November 2014 16:47:23 AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> This patch adds a new generic ptrace request, PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.
> It can be used to change a system call number as follows:
> ret = ptrace(pid, PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL, null, new_syscall_no);
> 'new_syscall_no' can be -1 to skip this sys
23 matches
Mail list logo
