[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <200607311302_MC3-1-C69F-F0D8@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:59:16 -0400
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Albert Cahalan <acahalan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86_64: fix is_at_popf() for compat tasks
In-Reply-To: <200607311054.38585.ak@...e.de>
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 10:54:38 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> > When testing for the REX instruction prefix, first check
> > for a 32-bit task because in compat mode the REX prefix is an
> > increment instruction.
>
> is_compat_task doesn't actually say that a task is in compat mode
> (it refers to the Linux compat layer, not x86-64 compat mode)
>
> A better test would be regs->cs == __USER32_CS, but in theory
> there could be other code segments in LDT. I guess that can
> be ignored though.
How about checking for regs->cs != __USER_CS instead? In 64-bit mode
a program shouldn't have any other value there while in 32-bit mode
it could be using LDT segments.
From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
When testing for the REX instruction prefix, first check
for 32-bit mode because in compat mode the REX prefix is an
increment instruction.
Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@...puserve.com>
--- 2.6.18-rc2-64.orig/arch/x86_64/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ 2.6.18-rc2-64/arch/x86_64/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -141,8 +141,11 @@ static int is_at_popf(struct task_struct
case 0xf0: case 0xf2: case 0xf3:
continue;
- /* REX prefixes */
case 0x40 ... 0x4f:
+ if (regs->cs != __USER_CS)
+ /* 32-bit mode: register increment */
+ return 0;
+ /* 64-bit mode: REX prefix */
continue;
/* CHECKME: f0, f2, f3 */
--
Chuck
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists