Am Dienstag, den 20.06.2017, 08:58 +0200 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
> Thomas,
>
> Am 20.06.2017 um 03:56 schrieb Thomas Meyer:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I finally did figure out where in the host kernel the ptrace
> > syscall
> > fails with -EFAULT.
>
> Nice! Thanks a lot for digging into this. I still h
[adding x86 folks]
Am 20.06.2017 um 10:49 schrieb Thomas Meyer:
> Am Dienstag, den 20.06.2017, 08:58 +0200 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>> Thomas,
>>
>> Am 20.06.2017 um 03:56 schrieb Thomas Meyer:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I finally did figure out where in the host kernel the ptrace
>>> syscall
>>> fails wi
Yu-cheng,
Am 20.06.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Yu-cheng Yu:
>>> So to summarize:
>>>
>>> - PTRACE_GETREGSET with NT_X86_XSTATE gets 832 and return 832, with no
>>> error.
>>>
>>> - PTRACE_SETREGSET get 832 (sizeof struct _xstate) but wants at least
>>> 1088, otherwise it will fail with -EFAULT (why not
Yu-cheng,
Am 20.06.2017 um 20:17 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
> Yu-cheng,
>
> Am 20.06.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Yu-cheng Yu:
So to summarize:
- PTRACE_GETREGSET with NT_X86_XSTATE gets 832 and return 832, with no
error.
- PTRACE_SETREGSET get 832 (sizeof struct _xstate)
> Am 20.06.2017 um 21:53 schrieb Yu-cheng Yu :
>
>> On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 20:59 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Yu-cheng,
>>
>>> Am 20.06.2017 um 20:17 schrieb Richard Weinberger:
>>> Yu-cheng,
>>>
>>> Am 20.06.2017 um 20:04 schrieb Yu-cheng Yu:
>> So to summarize:
>>
>> - PTRA