| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 16:49:07 +0200 From: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@...oo.it> To: user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net Cc: Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [uml-devel] [PATCH 3/8] UML - Fix missing x86_64 register definitions 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@...toit.com> > Cc: Paolo 'Blaisorblade' Giarrusso <blaisorblade@...oo.it> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.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 - 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