lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 23/31] arm64: Debugging support
    Date
    On Thursday 16 August 2012, Will Deacon wrote:
    > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:07:36PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > > On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote:

    > > From what I can tell, there is no support for 32 bit processes debugging
    > > 64 bit ones. Is that something you plan to add in the future, or do you
    > > consider that out of scope? In either case, a comment would be helpful.
    >
    > That can't really work because the debugger won't be able to manipulate
    > child pointers properly without us adding a new ptrace interface (and then,
    > I still wonder about how feasible it really is). I can add a comment.

    You can already have a 32 bit gdb that is able to do remote debugging of
    64 bit processes using a gdb server process. I guess it wouldn't be
    too strange to have a ptrace extension to allow the native case as well.
    I agree it's not a high priority.

    > > > +long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,
    > > > + unsigned long addr, unsigned long data)
    > > > +{
    > > > + int ret;
    > > > + unsigned long *datap = (unsigned long __user *)data;
    > > > +
    > > > + switch (request) {
    > > > + case PTRACE_GET_THREAD_AREA:
    > > > + ret = put_user(child->thread.tp_value, datap);
    > > > + break;
    > > > +
    > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_HW_BREAKPOINT
    > > > + case PTRACE_GETHBPREGS:
    > > > + ret = ptrace_gethbpregs(child, addr, datap);
    > > > + break;
    > > > +
    > > > + case PTRACE_SETHBPREGS:
    > > > + ret = ptrace_sethbpregs(child, addr, datap);
    > > > + break;
    > > > +#endif
    > > > +
    > > > + default:
    > > > + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
    > > > + break;
    > > > + }
    > > > +
    > > > + return ret;
    > > > +}
    > >
    > > Is there a reaons why these are not regsets but have their own ptrace
    > > commands? I believe new architectures should generally not add ptrace
    > > commands any more.
    >
    > I could probably add some regset wrappers about the hbp accessors (which we
    > have to keep for the compat ptrace interface). I'll have a think as it might
    > even make sense to have different regsets for breakpoints and watchpoints.
    >
    > As for the the tls, is it worth having a regset with only one register?

    Better ask the gdb folks. I'm adding Uli to Cc, maybe he has some insight.

    Arnd


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-08-16 15:41    [W:2.036 / U:0.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site