[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190503152405.2d741af8@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 15:24:05 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Nicolai Stange <nstange@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Joe Lawrence <joe.lawrence@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Nayna Jain <nayna@...ux.ibm.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call
functions
On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:49:29 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:22 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > Something like so; it boots; but I could've made some horrible mistake
> > (again).
>
> This actually looks much better to me.
>
> Maybe it's more lines (I didn't check), but it's a lot simpler in that
> now the magic of the int3 stack doesn't get exposed to anything else.
>
> We *could* also make this kernel-mode-only do_int3() be a special
> function, and do something like
>
> # args: pt_regs pointer (no error code for int3)
> movl %esp,%eax
> # allocate a bit of extra room on the stack, so that
> 'kernel_int3' can move the pt_regs
> subl $8,%esp
> call kernel_int3
> movl %eax,%esp
>
> and not do any stack switching magic in the asm code AT ALL. We'd do
>
> struct pt_regs *kernel_int3(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> ..
> return regs;
> }
>
> and now you the rule for call emulation ends up being that you need to
> "memmove()" the ptregs up and down properly, and return the new
> pt_regs pointer.
>
> Hmm? That would simplify the asm code further, but some people might
> find it objectionable?
>
The problem with this approach is that it would require doing the same
for x86_64, as the int3 C code is the same for both. And that may be a
bit more difficult on the x86_64 side because it's all done with a
simple flag in the idtentry macro to add the gap.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists