On 2/11/2016 5:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue,
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> >>>On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM
On 2/11/2016 5:54 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 01:25:47PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue,
On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
This might be buried in email storm during the
On 1/13/2016 10:10 AM, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 9:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 09:17:46AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
On 1/13/2016 2:26 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:59:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
This might be buried in email storm during the
On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+ struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+ siginfo_t info = {
+
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> > +{
> > + struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> > + siginfo_t info = {
> > + .si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> > +
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> + struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> + siginfo_t info = {
> + .si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> + .si_errno = 0,
> + .si_code= si_code,
> +
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:45:15PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> >>debug exception, so it sounds safe to have
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:45:15PM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote:
> On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> >>The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> >>debug exception, so it sounds safe to have
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> +{
> + struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> + siginfo_t info = {
> + .si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> + .si_errno = 0,
> + .si_code= si_code,
> +
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
> > +{
> > + struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
> > + siginfo_t info = {
> > + .si_signo = SIGTRAP,
> > +
On 12/21/2015 9:00 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:51:22PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015, Will Deacon wrote:
+static void send_user_sigtrap(int si_code)
+{
+ struct pt_regs *regs = current_pt_regs();
+ siginfo_t info = {
+
On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.
Is this
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> disabled by the parent process.
Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or
On 12/16/2015 3:13 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.
Is this
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 04:18:08PM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
> debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
> disabled by the parent process.
Is this actually fixing an issue you're seeing, or
The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi
---
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
The kernel just send out a SIGTRAP signal when handling ptrace breakpoint in
debug exception, so it sounds safe to have interrupt enabled if it is not
disabled by the parent process.
Signed-off-by: Yang Shi
---
arch/arm64/kernel/debug-monitors.c | 10 ++
1 file
20 matches
Mail list logo