[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <177f65bb-dab9-9a1e-73a8-506904192bb2@palves.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:07:56 +0100
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@...ves.net>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace
On 06/18/2016 06:02 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Yuck. I should have dug in to the history. Why not just
> unconditionally sign-extend eax when set by a 32-bit tracer?
No idea.
>
> Do you know how to acquire a copy of erestartsys-trap.c? The old
> links appear to be broken.
That's part of the ptrace testsuite project, still in cvs, though the url changed:
$ https://sourceware.org/systemtap/wiki/utrace/tests
$ cvs -d :pserver:anoncvs:anoncvs@...rceware.org:/cvs/systemtap co ptrace-tests
Can't seem to find a cvsweb interface for that.
I think it'd be great to move these to the selftests infrastructure
directly in the kernel tree. However, nobody's has ever managed to
find energy for that.
>
> Also, while I have your attention: when gdb restores old state like
> this, does it do it with individual calls to PTRACE_POKEUSER or does
> it use SETREGSET or similar to do it all at once? I'm asking because
> I have some other code (fsgsbase) that's on hold until I can figure
> out how to keep it from breaking gdb if and when gdb writes to fs and
> fs_base.
>
It depends on which register you're accessing, and on kernel version.
But on a recent kernel, it should be using PTRACE_SETREGS / PTRACE_SETREGSET,
thus storing a whole register set in one go. (And it's likely we could
get rid of PTRACE_POKE fallback paths by now.)
To write to the debug registers (dr0-dr7), PTRACE_POKEUSER is always used.
There's code that coordinates with glibc's libthread_db.so that ends
up _reading_ fs_base/gs_base, and gdb uses PTRACE_PEEKUSER for that,
though there's a pending series that changes it, exposing fs_base/gs_base
as just another register in gdb's register cache:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-11/msg00076.html
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-11/msg00077.html
Guess that makes fs_base/gs_base user-writable, if the kernel allows it.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
Powered by blists - more mailing lists