[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1904031823100.1967@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 18:26:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 15/14] x86/dumpstack/64: Speedup in_exception_stack()
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3. After all,
> >>> overflowing from one debug stack into another is just as much of a bug as
> >>> overflowing into a different IST stack.
> >>
> >> That makes sense.
> >
> > Except that we just have two not four.
> >
> > It needs some tweaking of the ist_shift stuff in entry_64.S but that's not
> > rocket science. Famous last words....
> >
>
> The ist_shift mess should probably be in C, but that’s a big can of
> worms. That being said, why do we have it at all? Once upon a time, we’d
> do ICEBP from user mode (or a legit breakpoint), then send a signal and
> hit a data breakpoint, and we’d recurse. But we don’t run user debug
> handlers on the IST stack at all anymore.
>
> Maybe we can convince ourselves it’s safe?
Maybe. Need to think about it for a while.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists