On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Will Drewry wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
>>> behavior will differ between kernels that know
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
>> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
>> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
behavior will differ between kernels that know about
__NR_future_enosys
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
> return the value from pt_regs). This is silly;
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
behavior will differ between kernels that know about
__NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
return the value from pt_regs).
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Will Drewry wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
>>> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
>> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
>> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
behavior will differ between kernels that know about
__NR_future_enosys (and
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Will Drewry w...@chromium.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
behavior
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
> behavior will differ between kernels that know about
> __NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
> return the value from pt_regs). This is silly;
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski l...@amacapital.net wrote:
Currently, if a tracer changes a syscall nr to __NR_future_enosys,
behavior will differ between kernels that know about
__NR_future_enosys (and return -ENOSYS) and older kernels (which
return the value from pt_regs).
12 matches
Mail list logo