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:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=117309251916053&w=2
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
