[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191129173213.GB3992@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 18:32:13 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@...hat.com>,
Pedro Alves <palves@...hat.com>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace/x86: introduce TS_COMPAT_RESTART to fix
get_nr_restart_syscall()
On 11/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I think this doesn’t work for x32.
Why? get_nr_restart_syscall() can still rely on the "orig_ax & __X32_SYSCALL_BIT"
check, debugger should restore regs->orig_ax correctly.
> Let’s either save the result of syscall_get_arch()
We can save the result of syscall_get_arch(), but it doesn't distinguish
x32/x86_64 tasks, so it doesn't really differ from TS_COMPAT.
> or just actually calculate and save the restart_syscall nr here.
sure, we we can do this.
> Before we commit to this, Kees, do you think we can manage to just renumber
> restart_syscall()? That’s a much better solution if we can pull it off.
Agreed.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists