> -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Lutomirski [mailto:l...@kernel.org] > Sent: 21 March 2018 01:47
Hello Andy, > I retract this particular comment. But I still think that all this > complexity needs to > be more clearly justified. My objection to the old approach wasn't that I > thought > it was obviously wrong -- I thought that someone needed to survey existing > ptrace() users and see if anyone needed the fancier code that you're adding. > Did > you find something that needs this fancy code? There are 3 cases: - only FS changed, e.g. "p $fs = ..." - only FS_BASE changed, e.g. "p $fs_base = ..." - both change, e.g. "p foo()" when restoring the original register state on return from the inferior call The ptracer may use SETREGS in all 3 cases, even though only a single register changed. For case 1, it might make sense to change FS_BASE as a side-effect. For case 2, we'd only want to change FS_BASE and leave FS. For case 3, we'd want both FS and FS_BASE to be set to the ptracer-provided values. Does that make sense? Thanks, Markus. Intel Deutschland GmbH Registered Address: Am Campeon 10-12, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Christian Lamprechter Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau Registered Office: Munich Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928
