On 11/13, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:38:53 +0100
> Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Change tracehook_report_syscall_exit() to look at step flag and send
> > the trap signal if needed.
> >
> > This change affects ia64, microblaze, parisc, powerpc, sh. They pass
> > nonzero "step" argument to tracehook but since it was ignored the tracee
> > reports via ptrace_notify(), this is not right and not consistent.
>
> This patch conflicts with utrace-core.patch a bit:
Ah, indeed, sorry...
> static inline void tracehook_report_syscall_exit(struct pt_regs *regs, int step)
> {
> if (step) {
> siginfo_t info;
> user_single_step_siginfo(current, regs, &info);
> force_sig_info(SIGTRAP, &info, current);
> return;
> }
>
> + if (task_utrace_flags(current) & UTRACE_EVENT(SYSCALL_EXIT))
> + utrace_report_syscall_exit(regs);
> ptrace_report_syscall(regs);
> }
>
>
> utrace-core.patch is getting rather old. What is its status?
Roland, given that you are going to send the updated utrace patch,
perhaps it makes sense to drop this old utrace-core.patch from -mm?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
