[lkml]   [2007]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: utrace comments
    On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 10:45:10AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
    > For the sake of avoiding too much rehash, here's Roland's reply to my
    > initial forrey into utrace:

    In that mail Roland suggests keeping the singlestep code entirely
    in the arm ptrace code. After a brief look at the arm code this
    looks easily possible. From a brief look the arm software singlestep
    consist of the following pieces:

    - PTRACE_SINGLESTEP implementation. Sets the PT_SINGLESTEP flag,
    clears TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE, sets ->exit_code in the traced code
    to the singlestepping signal and wakes the traced process up.

    This can easily be implemented by putting alsmost equivalent code
    into arch_ptrace.
    - clearing PT_SINGLESTEP and cancelling the breakpoint in ptrace_disable.

    Equivalent code can go into tracehook_disable_single_step.

    - Various places in signal.c that check PT_SINGLESTEP to set/clear
    the special singlestep breakpoint. This can stay, it just needs
    a different place to store the singlestep flag.

    Do I miss something?

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-04-30 12:37    [W:0.021 / U:84.296 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site