Re: nios2: is the ptrace ABI correct?

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 25 February 2015 08:33:16 Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> 
> /me is more confused now
> 
> In arch/nios2/include/asm/ucontext.h
> 
> struct ucontext {
>         unsigned long     uc_flags;
>         struct ucontext  *uc_link;
>         stack_t           uc_stack;
>         struct mcontext   uc_mcontext;
>         sigset_t          uc_sigmask;
> };
> 
> And in include/uapi/asm-generic/ucontext.h:
> 
> struct ucontext {
>         unsigned long     uc_flags;
>         struct ucontext  *uc_link;
>         stack_t           uc_stack;
>         struct sigcontext uc_mcontext;
>         sigset_t          uc_sigmask;
> };
> 
> Which one is the one that userspace sees? And why does the kernel has
> two different structures?

Userspace sees the asm-generic header, which I assume is a bug
in this case.

> Given this oddities, I'm wondering how troublesome would be to just
> re-do this and break the ptrace and signal ABI. For instance, just
> pushing pt_regs in PTRACE_GETREGSET would make things much clearer.

Could you change pt_regs to match the layout you have for PTRACE_GETREGSET
instead? It seems much more intuitive.

> I guess Linus would burn me for even suggesting to breaking users... but
> do we have any users at all? This arch has just been mainlined. Altera's
> out-of-tree is already ABI-incompatible with mainline so that's not an
> issue.
> 
> The only one using this ABI is gdb, which is easily fixed.

You can change anything you like as long as nobody complains about
regressions.

	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/