lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request
From
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> 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 current approach was taken because it follows the same scheme
>> as 32-bit ARM. If both methods are sufficient (Kees would have a better idea
>> than me on that), then I don't have a strong preference.
>
> Using the regset would probably address Oleg's comment, and would keep the
> implementation architecture specific. You could even share the NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL
> number, but I don't know if there any downsides to doing that.

That's fine by me -- I only want an interface. :) I think it'd be nice
to keep it the same between arm32 and arm64, but using a specific
regset does seem to be the better approach.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-07 18:21    [W:0.039 / U:1.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site