On 11/07, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -853,11 +853,6 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, datap); break;
case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:task_thread_info(child)->syscall = data;ret = 0;break;#ifdef CONFIG_CRUNCH case PTRACE_GETCRUNCHREGS: ret = ptrace_getcrunchregs(child, datap); diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c index 54e7522..d7048fa 100644 --- a/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -1001,6 +1001,12 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long request, break; } #endif
+#ifdef PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL
- case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:
ret = syscall_set_nr(child, task_pt_regs(child), data);break;+#endif
I too do not understand why it makes sense to move PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL into the common kernel/ptrace.c.
To me the fact that PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL can be undefined and syscall_set_nr() is very much arch-dependant (but most probably trivial) means that this code should live in arch_ptrace().
In any case, I think it doesn't make sense to pass task_pt_regs(child), this helper can do this itself if it needs struct pt_regs.
Oleg.