Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:40:35 +0530 | From | Anshuman Khandual <> | Subject | Re: [V6,1/9] elf: Add new powerpc specifc core note sections |
| |
On 04/10/2015 08:33 AM, Michael Neuling wrote: > On Thu, 2015-04-09 at 18:20 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 04/09/2015 04:41 AM, Michael Neuling wrote: >>> On Wed, 2015-04-08 at 19:50 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: >>>> Anshuman Khandual <khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote on 23.03.2015 >>>> 11:34:30: >>>> >>>>>> With that in mind, do we have a way to set the top 32bits of the MSR >>>>>> (which contain the TM bits) when ptracing 32 bit processes? I can't >>>>>> find anything like that in this patch set. >>>>> >>>>> No, we dont have that yet. When ptracing in 32-bit mode the MSR value >>>>> which can be viewed or set from the user space through PTRACE_GETREGS >>>>> PTRACE_SETREGS call is it's lower 32 bits only. Either we can club >>>>> the upper 32 bits of MSR as part of one of the ELF core notes we are >>>>> adding in the patch series or we can create one more separate ELF core >>>>> note for that purpose. Let me know your opinion on this. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I understand this. I thought we had the following: >>>> >>>> - If the process calling ptrace is itself 64-bit (which is how GDB is >>>> built on all current Linux distributions), then PTRACE_GETREGS etc. >>>> will *always* operate on 64-bit register sets, even if the target >>>> process is 32-bit. >>>> >>>> - If the process calling ptrace is 32-bit, then PTRACE_GETREGS will >>>> operate on 32-bit register sets. However, there is a separate >>>> PTRACE_GETREGS64 / PTRACE_SETREGS64 call that will also provide >>>> the opportunity to operate on the full 64-bit register set. Both >>>> apply independently of whether the target process is 32-bit or >>>> 64-bit. >>>> >>>> Is this not correct? >>> >>> I think you're correct. We should be right. I'd forgotten about the >>> GET/SETREGS64 interfaces. >> >> In that case, is the patch series complete and okay ? Is there any thing >> else we need to verify other than waiting for the GDB test results which >> Edjunior has been working on. But I am not aware of the status on the GDB >> test development front. > > I think we are good.
I had posted a newer version [V7] of this patch series couple of months back which got ignored while the discussion continued in this version.
V7: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/14/19
Apart from the last gitignore related patch which already got merged into mainline separately, all other patches should be as good even today. I will try rebasing the series, running the base tests again and re post it in some time.
| |