Re: [RFC] ptrace: add generic SET_SYSCALL request

[Kees Cook]

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote:
>>
>> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is
>> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead
>> > the other.
>>
>> I suspect the current approach was taken because it follows the same scheme
>> as 32-bit ARM. If both methods are sufficient (Kees would have a better idea
>> than me on that), then I don't have a strong preference.
>
> Using the regset would probably address Oleg's comment, and would keep the
> implementation architecture specific. You could even share the NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL
> number, but I don't know if there any downsides to doing that.

That's fine by me -- I only want an interface. :) I think it'd be nice
to keep it the same between arm32 and arm64, but using a specific
regset does seem to be the better approach.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/