public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions
@ 2006-09-25 18:34 Jeff Dike
  2006-10-01 14:49 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Dike @ 2006-09-25 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: akpm; +Cc: linux-kernel, user-mode-linux-devel

The UML/x86_64 headers were missing ptrace support for some segment
registers.  The underlying problem was that the x86_64 kernel uses
user_regs_struct rather than the ptrace register definitions in
ptrace.  This patch switches UML/x86_64 to using user_regs_struct
for its definitions of the host's registers.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>

Index: linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.18-mm.orig/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h	2006-09-22 11:36:43.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h	2006-09-22 13:19:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -50,6 +50,21 @@
 #define HOST_FS 25
 #define HOST_GS 26
 
+/* Also defined in asm/ptrace-x86_64.h, but not in libc headers.  So, these
+ * are already defined for kernel code, but not for userspace code.
+ */
+#ifndef FS_BASE
+/* These aren't defined in ptrace.h, but exist in struct user_regs_struct,
+ * which is what x86_64 ptrace actually uses.
+ */
+#define FS_BASE (HOST_FS_BASE * sizeof(long))
+#define GS_BASE (HOST_GS_BASE * sizeof(long))
+#define DS (HOST_DS * sizeof(long))
+#define ES (HOST_ES * sizeof(long))
+#define FS (HOST_FS * sizeof(long))
+#define GS (HOST_GS * sizeof(long))
+#endif
+
 #define REGS_FS_BASE(r) ((r)[HOST_FS_BASE])
 #define REGS_GS_BASE(r) ((r)[HOST_GS_BASE])
 #define REGS_DS(r) ((r)[HOST_DS])
@@ -89,9 +104,12 @@ union uml_pt_regs {
 #endif
 #ifdef UML_CONFIG_MODE_SKAS
 	struct skas_regs {
-		/* XXX */
-		unsigned long regs[27];
-		unsigned long fp[65];
+		/* x86_64 ptrace uses sizeof(user_regs_struct) as its register
+		 * file size, while i386 uses FRAME_SIZE.  Therefore, we need
+		 * to use UM_FRAME_SIZE here instead of HOST_FRAME_SIZE.
+		 */
+		unsigned long regs[UM_FRAME_SIZE];
+		unsigned long fp[HOST_FP_SIZE];
                 struct faultinfo faultinfo;
 		long syscall;
 		int is_user;
@@ -120,11 +138,16 @@ extern int mode_tt;
 #define UPT_R14(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_R14(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_R14((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_R15(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_R15(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_R15((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_CS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_CS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_CS((r)->skas.regs))
+#define UPT_FS_BASE(r) \
+	__CHOOSE_MODE(SC_FS_BASE(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_FS_BASE((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_FS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_FS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_FS((r)->skas.regs))
+#define UPT_GS_BASE(r) \
+	__CHOOSE_MODE(SC_GS_BASE(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_GS_BASE((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_GS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_GS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_GS((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_DS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_DS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_DS((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_ES(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_ES(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_ES((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_CS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_CS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_CS((r)->skas.regs))
+#define UPT_SS(r) __CHOOSE_MODE(SC_SS(UPT_SC(r)), REGS_SS((r)->skas.regs))
 #define UPT_ORIG_RAX(r) \
 	__CHOOSE_MODE((r)->tt.orig_rax, REGS_ORIG_RAX((r)->skas.regs))
 
@@ -183,6 +206,13 @@ struct syscall_args {
                 case RBP: val = UPT_RBP(regs); break; \
                 case ORIG_RAX: val = UPT_ORIG_RAX(regs); break; \
                 case CS: val = UPT_CS(regs); break; \
+                case SS: val = UPT_SS(regs); break; \
+		case FS_BASE: val = UPT_FS_BASE(regs); break; \
+                case GS_BASE: val = UPT_GS_BASE(regs); break; \
+                case DS: val = UPT_DS(regs); break; \
+                case ES: val = UPT_ES(regs); break; \
+                case FS : val = UPT_FS (regs); break; \
+		case GS: val = UPT_GS(regs); break;	    \
                 case EFLAGS: val = UPT_EFLAGS(regs); break; \
                 default :  \
                         panic("Bad register in UPT_REG : %d\n", reg);  \
@@ -214,6 +244,13 @@ struct syscall_args {
                 case RBP: UPT_RBP(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
                 case ORIG_RAX: UPT_ORIG_RAX(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
                 case CS: UPT_CS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case SS: UPT_SS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case FS_BASE: UPT_FS_BASE(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case GS_BASE: UPT_GS_BASE(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case DS: UPT_DS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case ES: UPT_ES(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case FS: UPT_FS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
+                case GS: UPT_GS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
                 case EFLAGS: UPT_EFLAGS(regs) = __upt_val; break; \
                 default :  \
                         panic("Bad register in UPT_SET : %d\n", reg);  \
Index: linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/sc.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.18-mm.orig/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/sc.h	2006-06-17 21:49:35.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/sc.h	2006-09-22 13:19:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -35,11 +35,11 @@
 #define SC_GS(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_GS)
 #define SC_EFLAGS(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_EFLAGS)
 #define SC_SIGMASK(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_SIGMASK)
+#define SC_SS(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_SS)
 #if 0
 #define SC_ORIG_RAX(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_ORIG_RAX)
 #define SC_DS(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_DS)
 #define SC_ES(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_ES)
-#define SC_SS(sc) SC_OFFSET(sc, SC_SS)
 #endif
 
 #endif
Index: linux-2.6.18-mm/include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.18-mm.orig/include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h	2006-09-22 11:34:59.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.18-mm/include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h	2006-09-22 13:19:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -16,12 +16,15 @@
 
 #define HOST_AUDIT_ARCH AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64
 
+/* Also defined in sysdep/ptrace.h, so may already be defined. */
+#ifndef FS_BASE
 #define FS_BASE (21 * sizeof(unsigned long))
 #define GS_BASE (22 * sizeof(unsigned long))
 #define DS (23 * sizeof(unsigned long))
 #define ES (24 * sizeof(unsigned long))
 #define FS (25 * sizeof(unsigned long))
 #define GS (26 * sizeof(unsigned long))
+#endif
 
 #define PT_REGS_RBX(r) UPT_RBX(&(r)->regs)
 #define PT_REGS_RCX(r) UPT_RCX(&(r)->regs)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions
  2006-09-25 18:34 [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions Jeff Dike
@ 2006-10-01 14:49 ` Blaisorblade
  2006-10-01 15:11   ` Jeff Dike
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Blaisorblade @ 2006-10-01 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: user-mode-linux-devel; +Cc: Jeff Dike, linux-kernel

On Monday 25 September 2006 20:34, Jeff Dike wrote:
> The UML/x86_64 headers were missing ptrace support for some segment
> registers. The underlying problem was that the x86_64 kernel uses
> user_regs_struct rather than the ptrace register definitions in ptrace. 
> This patch switches UML/x86_64 to using user_regs_struct for its
> definitions of the host's registers.

> Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>
> Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> ---
>
>  arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h |   43 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/sc.h     |    2 -
>  include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h         |    3 +
>  3 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN
> arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h~uml-fix-missing-x86_64-register-defi
>nitions arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h ---
> a/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h~uml-fix-missing-x86_64-register-de
>finitions +++ a/arch/um/include/sysdep-x86_64/ptrace.h
> @@ -50,6 +50,21 @@
>  #define HOST_FS 25
>  #define HOST_GS 26
>
> +/* Also defined in asm/ptrace-x86_64.h, but not in libc headers.  So,
> these + * are already defined for kernel code, but not for userspace code.
> + */
> +#ifndef FS_BASE
> +/* These aren't defined in ptrace.h, but exist in struct user_regs_struct,
> + * which is what x86_64 ptrace actually uses.
> + */
> +#define FS_BASE (HOST_FS_BASE * sizeof(long))
> +#define GS_BASE (HOST_GS_BASE * sizeof(long))
> +#define DS (HOST_DS * sizeof(long))
> +#define ES (HOST_ES * sizeof(long))
> +#define FS (HOST_FS * sizeof(long))
> +#define GS (HOST_GS * sizeof(long))
> +#endif
> +
>  #define REGS_FS_BASE(r) ((r)[HOST_FS_BASE])
>  #define REGS_GS_BASE(r) ((r)[HOST_GS_BASE])
>  #define REGS_DS(r) ((r)[HOST_DS])

> diff -puN
> include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h~uml-fix-missing-x86_64-register-definitions
> include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h ---
> a/include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h~uml-fix-missing-x86_64-register-definition
>s +++ a/include/asm-um/ptrace-x86_64.h
> @@ -16,12 +16,15 @@
>
>  #define HOST_AUDIT_ARCH AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64
>
> +/* Also defined in sysdep/ptrace.h, so may already be defined. */
> +#ifndef FS_BASE
>  #define FS_BASE (21 * sizeof(unsigned long))
>  #define GS_BASE (22 * sizeof(unsigned long))
>  #define DS (23 * sizeof(unsigned long))
>  #define ES (24 * sizeof(unsigned long))
>  #define FS (25 * sizeof(unsigned long))
>  #define GS (26 * sizeof(unsigned long))
> +#endif
>
>  #define PT_REGS_RBX(r) UPT_RBX(&(r)->regs)
>  #define PT_REGS_RCX(r) UPT_RCX(&(r)->regs)

The patch is ok for me, but frankly, this hunk could be further cleaned up - 
there is an awful hardcoded duplication of code which could be removed (the 
definition could be split away from <sysdep/ptrace.h> if inclusion order hell 
starts).
-- 
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! 
 http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions
  2006-10-01 14:49 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
@ 2006-10-01 15:11   ` Jeff Dike
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Dike @ 2006-10-01 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Blaisorblade; +Cc: user-mode-linux-devel, linux-kernel

On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 04:49:07PM +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> The patch is ok for me, but frankly, this hunk could be further cleaned up - 
> there is an awful hardcoded duplication of code which could be removed (the 
> definition could be split away from <sysdep/ptrace.h> if inclusion order hell
> starts).

Yeah, these headers needs some serious cleanup.

				Jeff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2006-10-01 15:12 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-09-25 18:34 [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions Jeff Dike
2006-10-01 14:49 ` [uml-devel] " Blaisorblade
2006-10-01 15:11   ` Jeff Dike

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox