Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request

[Arnd Bergmann]

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/