[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C9BB696F3A938947B10DCAD29FAB8FFA66AC932C@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:17:49 +0000
From: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
CC: X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 14/15] x86/fsgsbase/64: Support legacy behavior when
FS/GS updated by ptracer
________________________________________
From: Andy Lutomirski [luto@...nel.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 09:53
>>> But your patch doesn't actually do this, since gdb will just do
>>> SETREGS anyway, right?
>> GDB does SETREGS on any exclusive (FS/GS) updates in inferior call.
> This means that your patch has exactly the same effect as the code in
> my git tree, right? Then let's stick with something like what's in my
> git tree, since it's far simpler.
Difference is if flipping FS/GS multiple times, user may check the base from LDT.
But I don't have strong will to keep arguing this; Markus or somebody might
want to say something.
The whole point as I understand is to avoid any regression on legacy ptracers.
If a strong confidence lies on the simple version, let me. My first thought bought
this in fact.
Thanks,
Chang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists