Ciao,
questa รจ una Jumbo Mail, che [EMAIL PROTECTED] ti ha inviato per condividere
con te
* video.zip (119256515 byte)
e questo messaggio:
Greetings and Happy New Year from the Sorrento Peninsular.
I've just finishe
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:30:04 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >
> > I don't think that the Wine problem resolution is due to the POPF
> > instruction handling. Basically Linus patch does a nice cleanup plus POPF
> > handling
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> I don't think that the Wine problem resolution is due to the POPF
> instruction handling. Basically Linus patch does a nice cleanup plus POPF
> handling, so maybe the patch can be split.
The popf part is very nice in that it allows you to single-
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> Lots, I like it. The syscall trap will always be delivered before the
> single-step trap, right, because signal delivery won't run until we
> return to userspace?
Yes. Although I've not actually tested it.
Before, it used to show up as one eve
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > - you couldn't even debug signal handlers, because they were _really_
> >hard to get into unless you knew where they were and put a breakpoint
> >on them.
>
> Ok I see this as being a problem. But I bet it could be fixed
> much simpler wit
On Freitag 31 Dezember 2004 14.31, Mike Hearn wrote:
> What about this patch?
This works now. Happy new year...
Tom
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > - you couldn't even debug signal handlers, because they were _really_
> >hard to get into unless you knew where they were and put a breakpoint
> >on them.
>
> Ok I see this as being a problem. But I bet it could be fixed
> much simpler without
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 09:47:42PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So I looked at just sharing the code with the debug trap handler, and the
> result is appended. strace works, as does all the TF tests I've thrown at
> it, and the code actually looks better anyway (the old do_debug code looks
> like
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 14:13 +0100, Thomas Sailer wrote:
> No this doesn't work. The decision which address space layout to use is done
> in arch/i386/mm/mmap.c:arch_pick_mmap_layout, and this function is called by
> the elf loader in fs/binfmt_elf.c:load_elf_binary, i.e. the decision which
> add
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> Well, you put SIGTRAP|0x80 in si_code. Coincidentally, 0x80 is
> SI_KERNEL. So testing for SI_KERNEL | 0x80 is probably OK in the
> signal path, since most of its other arbitrary values would be either
> negative or not include SI_KERNEL.
Some
On Donnerstag 30 Dezember 2004 14.06, you wrote:
> Tom, does this patch against Wine help? It should do the same thing as
> the setarch program, so if that fixes it then this should also (if I've
> understood how this mechanism works of course).
No this doesn't work. The decision which address sp
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 09:05:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Jesse Allen wrote:
> >
> > Well I tried this patch and it works.
>
> Goodie. Are there other known problems with silly copy-protection
> schemes? It migth be worth testing.
>
> However:
>
> > Since I
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 04:38:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Can someone repeat again what was wrong with the old ptrace
> > semantics before the initial change that caused all these complex
> > changes? It seemed to work well for years. How about we just
> > go back to the old state, rever
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> Just looking at all this complexiy and thinking about
> making it work on x86-64 too doesn't exactly give a good
> feeling in my spine.
>
> Not to belittle your archivement Linus but it all looks
> very overengineered to me.
Ehh, do you have any _alte
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 03:17:01PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > does not look right to me. Before, we'd get an 0x80|SIGTRAP result
> > from wait. Now, you've moved the 0x80 to live only inside the siginfo.
> > This is accessible to th
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> does not look right to me. Before, we'd get an 0x80|SIGTRAP result
> from wait. Now, you've moved the 0x80 to live only inside the siginfo.
> This is accessible to the debugger via ptrace, but only very recently
> (late 2.5.x). So this will pr
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a bit more involved than I'd like, since especially the "popf" case
> just is pretty complex, but I'd love to hear whether it works.
>
> NOTE NOTE NOTE! I've tested it, but only on one small test-case, so it
> might be totally broken in many ways
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Jesse Allen wrote:
>
> Well I tried this patch and it works.
Goodie. Are there other known problems with silly copy-protection
schemes? It migth be worth testing.
However:
> Since I cannot spot any issue, the patch looks good. Are there any
> other test cases?
Yes. I
i386 architecture details are really not my thing, so I'm going to
trust you on most of this, but this bit:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 02:46:17PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> /* the 0x80 provides a way for the tracing parent to distinguish
> between a syscall stop and SIGTRAP deliver
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Working on a patch for this right now, I'll send something out soonish
> (and I'll test it on my test-case before sending it, so that it at least
> has some chance of working).
Ok, here's a patch that may or may not make Wine happier. It's a _lot
20 matches
Mail list logo
