Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request | Date | Wed, 12 Nov 2014 12:19:26 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 11:13:52 Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 11:06:59AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > > On 11/12/2014 08:00 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 10:46:01AM +0000, 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 arch_ptrace(). > > >> > > >> Thinking of Oleg's comment above, it doesn't make sense neither to define generic > > >> NT_SYSTEM_CALL (user_regset) in uapi/linux/elf.h and implement it in ptrace_regset() > > >> in kernel/ptrace.c with arch-defined syscall_(g)set_nr(). > > >> > > >> Since we should have the same interface on arm and arm64, we'd better implement > > >> ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) locally on arm64 for now (as I originally submitted). > > > > > > I think the regset approach is cleaner. We already do something similar for > > > TLS. That would be implemented under arch/arm64/ with it's own NT type. > > > > Okey, so arm64 goes its own way > > Or do you want to have a similar regset on arm, too? > > (In this case, NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL can be shared in uapi/linux/elf.h) > > 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), or even define it as an architecture- independent NT_SYSTEM_CALL number with that value, so other architectures don't have to introduce new types when they also want to implement it.
Arnd
| |