Re: [PATCH 1/2] Blackfin: initial tracehook support

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 02/11, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 22:24, Roland McGrath wrote:
>
> > On some machines, single-step into a syscall instruction is no different
> > from other user instructions, so the normal SIGTRAP will come afterwards
> > anyway.
> >
> > On other machines, entering the kernel for the syscall instruction defeats
> > the normal user-mode effects of single-step being enabled.  In that event,
> > you want to call tracehook_report_syscall_exit() if single-step is enabled.
> > You must pass a nonzero second argument if your arch code is not going to
> > generate the normal SIGTRAP associated with having single-stepped into the
> > syscall instruction.
>
> so tracehook_report_syscall_exit() checking TIF_SINGLESTEP only makes
> sense when the arch doesnt support hardware single stepping in user
> mode ?  the Blackfin processor does support hardware single stepping
> (and we utilize it in Linux).

I'd like to know the answer too ;)

But, even if x86 supports hardware single stepping, it does check
TIF_SINGLESTEP and pass it to tracehook_report_syscall_exit(step).

Consider PTRACE_SINGLESTEP which follows the syscall-entry stop.
The tracee gets the trap before return to user-mode. Otherwise,
if we just return with X86_EFLAGS_TF, it gets the trap after the
next instruction after syscall insn. But I don't know whether
blackfin should follow this logic.

> also, in reading the kerneldocs for tracehook_report_syscall_exit(),
> it says "an attempted system call".  should system calls greater than
> NR_syscall (-ENOSYS) also get traced ?

I'd say yes, but let's wait for Roland's reply.

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/