[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <13EAF4BE-144F-47D6-8A38-3B6D97ACFF8A@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:49:37 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
CC: Dmitry Safonov <dsafonov@...tuozzo.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] x86/mm: set x32 syscall bit in SET_PERSONALITY()
On March 21, 2017 10:45:57 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:17 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:37:12PM +0300, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> ...
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>>> index d6b784a5520d..d3d4d9abcaf8 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/process_64.c
>>> @@ -519,8 +519,14 @@ void set_personality_ia32(bool x32)
>>> if (current->mm)
>>> current->mm->context.ia32_compat = TIF_X32;
>>> current->personality &= ~READ_IMPLIES_EXEC;
>>> - /* in_compat_syscall() uses the presence of the x32
>>> - syscall bit flag to determine compat status */
>>> + /*
>>> + * in_compat_syscall() uses the presence of the x32
>>> + * syscall bit flag to determine compat status.
>>> + * On the bitness of syscall relies x86 mmap() code,
>>> + * so set x32 syscall bit right here to make
>>> + * in_compat_syscall() work during exec().
>>> + */
>>> + task_pt_regs(current)->orig_ax |= __X32_SYSCALL_BIT;
>>> current->thread.status &= ~TS_COMPAT;
>>
>> Hi! I must admit I didn't follow close the overall series (so can't
>> comment much here :) but I have a slightly unrelated question -- is
>> there a way to figure out if task is running in x32 mode say with
>> some ptrace or procfs sign?
>
>You should be able to figure out of a *syscall* is x32 by simply
>looking at bit 30 in the syscall number. (This is unlike i386, which
>is currently not reflected in ptrace.)
>
>Do we actually have an x32 per-task mode at all? If so, maybe we can
>just remove it on top of Dmitry's series.
We do, for things like signal delivery mostly. We have tried relying on it as little as possible, intentionally.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists