2018-01-18 18:37 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Greentime Hu <green.hu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From: Greentime Hu <greentime@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch adds ptrace support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vincent Chen <vincentc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Greentime Hu <greentime@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I must have missed this patch earlier, unfortunately I don't think
> this is ready:
>
>> +long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, unsigned long addr,
>> + unsigned long data)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + switch (request) {
>> + case PTRACE_PEEKUSR:
>> + ret =
>> + ptrace_read_user(child, addr, (unsigned long __user *)data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case PTRACE_POKEUSR:
>> + ret = ptrace_write_user(child, addr, data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case PTRACE_GETREGS:
>> + ret = ptrace_getregs(child, (void __user *)data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case PTRACE_SETREGS:
>> + ret = ptrace_setregs(child, (void __user *)data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case PTRACE_GETFPREGS:
>> + ret = ptrace_getfpregs(child, (void __user *)data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + case PTRACE_SETFPREGS:
>> + ret = ptrace_setfpregs(child, (void __user *)data);
>> + break;
>> +
>> + default:
>> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>
> It appears that you are implementing the old-style ptrace handling
> with architecture specific commands. Please have a look at how
> this is done in risc-v or arm64. If this takes more too much time
> to address, I'd suggest using an empty stub function for sys_ptrace
> and adding it back at a later point, but not send the current version
> upstream.
>
> Arnd
Dear Arnd:
Thanks for your comments.
After referring to risc-v and arm64, I realize that PTRACE_GETREGSET
and PTRACE_SETREGSET is used to replace arch specific command.
The needed port for the two ptrace commands had done in current
version patch.
Could I keep them and just removing the code for old-style ptrace
handling in the next version patch?
Thanks
Vincent
