[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CBC57AB1-D92D-44B1-9428-B84B17429C8F@amacapital.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:19:59 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
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 Nov 29, 2019, at 9:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Right. Although relying on this is IMO a ridiculous bit of ABI.
>
>> 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.
Duh. Never mind.
>
>> or just actually calculate and save the restart_syscall nr here.
>
> sure, we we can do this.
I like this the best unless we can renumber the syscalls.
>
>> 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