Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [V6,1/9] elf: Add new powerpc specifc core note sections | From | Michael Neuling <> | Date | Fri, 10 Apr 2015 13:03:53 +1000 |
| |
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.
Mikey
> > Edjunior, > > Do you have any updates ? > > Regards > Anshuman > >
|  |