[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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 <> 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.


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

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-10 11:41    [W:0.113 / U:2.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site