From: "dsmith at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: systemtap@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug tapsets/18597] long_arg() doesn't correctly handle negative values in 32-on-64 environment
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:36:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-18597-6586-d1ceMFPxIJ@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-18597-6586@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18597
--- Comment #8 from David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com> ---
(In reply to Josh Stone from comment #7)
> (In reply to David Smith from comment #5)
> > What if we decided that if you call longlong_arg() on a 64-bit OS on a
> > 32-bit process you really *want* a 64-bit value from 1 register? In some
> > ways this makes sense and it matches our old behavior. My theory here is
> > that you know what you are doing and if you call longlong_arg() on a 32-bit
> > process you must be in the true 64-bit function at this point.
>
> That assumes you're only using this in the kernel. For a uprobe,
> longlong_arg() still needs to follow the 2-register ABI, no? That's when
> the probing_32bit_app() branch should be active.
>
> So yes, longlong_arg() in 64-bit kernel context should use 1 register,
> regardless of the task, but a 32-bit user context still needs to use 2
> registers.
We can certainly add that code back, but do we know of anyone using the
stp_arg()-based dwarfless parameters functions from uprobes? Do we test that?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-30 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-25 11:00 [Bug tapsets/18597] New: " mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-06-25 11:03 ` [Bug tapsets/18597] " mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-06-25 11:04 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-06-25 15:03 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-06-26 12:13 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-26 12:20 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 15:56 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 15:59 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 17:21 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 17:36 ` dsmith at redhat dot com [this message]
2015-06-30 20:21 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 20:22 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 20:32 ` jistone at redhat dot com
2015-06-30 20:46 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-07-01 15:21 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-07-01 16:14 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-07-01 17:10 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-07-01 17:29 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-07-03 14:18 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-07-06 13:45 ` dsmith at redhat dot com
2015-07-07 7:02 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
2015-07-08 6:09 ` mcermak at redhat dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-18597-6586-d1ceMFPxIJ@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
--cc=systemtap@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).