Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:32:38 +0100 | From | Christoph Hellwig <> | Subject | Re: utrace comments |
| |
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:45:10AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > For the sake of avoiding too much rehash, here's Roland's reply to my > initial forrey into utrace: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117309251916053&w=2
In that mail Roland suggests keeping the singlestep code entirely in the arm ptrace code. After a brief look at the arm code this looks easily possible. From a brief look the arm software singlestep consist of the following pieces:
- PTRACE_SINGLESTEP implementation. Sets the PT_SINGLESTEP flag, clears TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE, sets ->exit_code in the traced code to the singlestepping signal and wakes the traced process up.
This can easily be implemented by putting alsmost equivalent code into arch_ptrace. - clearing PT_SINGLESTEP and cancelling the breakpoint in ptrace_disable.
Equivalent code can go into tracehook_disable_single_step.
- Various places in signal.c that check PT_SINGLESTEP to set/clear the special singlestep breakpoint. This can stay, it just needs a different place to store the singlestep flag.
Do I miss something?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |