[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8991CF11-DDE0-4E93-B913-82968DCFB661@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:05:52 -0700
From: hpa@...or.com
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@...el.com>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
"Metzger, Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] x86/ldt,ptrace: provide regset access to the LDT
On June 22, 2018 7:49:13 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 2:18 PM H. Peter Anvin, Intel
><h.peter.anvin@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Provide ptrace/regset access to the LDT, if one exists. This
>> interface provides both read and write access. The write code is
>> unified with modify_ldt(); the read code doesn't have enough
>> similarity so it has been kept made separate.
>
>For this and for the GDT, you've chosen to use struct user_desc as
>your format instead of using a native hardware descriptor format. Any
>particular reason why? If nothing else, it will bloat core files a
>bit more than needed.
I did because REGSET_TLS was implemented that way, and that is simply a subset of the GDT (which made the same code trivially applicable to both.) modify_ldt() does it *both* ways for extra fun (one for reading, and one for writing.)
->active is defined as "beyond this point the regset contains only the default value", which seemed appropriate in this case.
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists