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:0.430 / U:0.800 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site