Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Roland McGrath
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 - 4:36 pm

> It is unclear (to me) what are the consequences of this problem?  What

I don't know off hand of something that cares.  (I have a test case, but
it's just contrived for the purpose.)  Something like UML could use this to
approximate PTRACE_SYSEMU when it's not there.  But we would have heard
before now if UML cared about this particular behavior on x86_64.


No hurry.  It's been broken forever (regression vs native 32-bit).
(OTOH, the fixes are quite safe.)


Thanks,
Roland
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS, Roland McGrath, (Sun Mar 16, 9:57 pm)
[PATCH 2/2] x86_64 ptrace vs -ENOSYS, Roland McGrath, (Sun Mar 16, 9:59 pm)
[PATCH] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS sysenter/syscall, Roland McGrath, (Tue Mar 18, 6:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS, Andrew Morton, (Wed Mar 19, 3:17 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS, Roland McGrath, (Wed Mar 19, 4:36 pm)
Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86_64 ia32 ptrace vs -ENOSYS, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Mar 21, 3:33 am)