On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:49:56PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:28:46PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > Ok, this gives us a definite proposal, which I finally like:
> >
> > * to exclude sys_tee:
> >
> > bitmask = 0;
> > set_bit(__NR_tee, bitmask);
> > ptrace(PTRACE_SET_NOTR
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:51:27AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 09:49:56PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:28:46PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> > > bitmask = 0;
> > > set_bit(__NR_tee, bitmask);
> > > ptrace(PTRACE_SET_TRACEONLY, bitmask);
> >
>
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 09:45:52AM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote:
> The example above is a sketch, not a fully formed, compilable user. Every
> proposed interface has had the mask length passed in - in the case
> above in the data argument.
Oh. Well, then, I must have missed a message when I read the t
Blaisorblade's uml-makefile-nicer makes a V=0 build say SYMLINK where what's
happening is really a LINK.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: linux-2.6.16/arch/um/Makefile
===
--- linux-2.6.16.orig/arch/um/Makefile 20
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:44:30AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Lindent doesn't do a terribly good job, and one ends up having to perform a
> lot of manual fixups. Perhaps as many as are presently needed.
We are doing style cleanups as code is changed - this is slow, but I
think this is the best
On Monday 01 May 2006 18:39, Jeff Dike wrote:
> Blaisorblade's uml-makefile-nicer makes a V=0 build say SYMLINK where
> what's happening is really a LINK.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Good catch:
Acked-by: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
Inform me of my
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> IMHO this is way too complicated. Introducing a ptrace call that returns
> the number of syscalls and forcing user space to pass a complete bitmask
> is much easier. Also the semantics are much easier to understand.
This sounds more
Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is definite 2.6.17 material...
>
> As of rc3-mm1, inet_init, which schedules, is called before the UML
> timer_init,
> which sets up the timer. The result is the interval timers being manipulated
> before the appropriate signal handlers are establish
This is definite 2.6.17 material...
As of rc3-mm1, inet_init, which schedules, is called before the UML timer_init,
which sets up the timer. The result is the interval timers being manipulated
before the appropriate signal handlers are established, causing unhandled
timers.
This is fixed by maki
On Mon, May 01, 2006 at 02:58:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Which means nobody's tested uml against the last couple of -mm's. Bad.
Yeah.
I didn't check rc2-mm1 because it came out after rc3, and I missed
rc1-mm3. But rc1-mm2 was OK.
Jeff
-
> This sounds more complicated than what we are proposing.
>
> This would make the process care about the number of system calls
> implemented by the kernel, which is something that doesn't even come
> up in the normal case with the current interface. You only care about
> it if you get a -EINV
11 matches
Mail list logo
