[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190507091403.556daba7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 09:14:02 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc: 'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"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 Tue, 7 May 2019 12:57:15 +0000
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM> wrote:
> > Only the INT3 thing needs 'the gap', but the far bigger change here is
> > that kernel frames now have a complete pt_regs set and all sorts of
> > horrible crap can go away.
>
> I'm not doubting that generating the 'five register' interrupt stack frame
> for faults in kernel space makes life simpler just suggesting that the
> 'emulated call' can be done by emulating the 'iret' rather than generating
> a gap in the stack.
But how would the user put something on the stack? I don't see how
emulating an iret helps here. Can you write some pseudo code to explain
what you mean. I also believe the gap is only added for kernel->kernel
entries.
>
> > For 32bit 'the gap' happens naturally when building a 5 entry frame. Yes
> > it is possible to build a 5 entry frame on top of the old 3 entry one,
> > but why bother...
>
> Presumably there is 'horrid' code to generate the gap in 64bit mode?
> (less horrid than 32bit, but still horrid?)
> Or does it copy the entire pt_regs into a local stack frame and use
> that for the iret?
On x86_64, the gap is only done for int3 and nothing else, thus it is
much less horrid. That's because x86_64 has a sane pt_regs storage for
all exceptions.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists