[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWTDrcynTwpWZ6u6JXRL1rz6_vakLK7=BqMjCPCkQ+9dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 18:07:01 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Kyle Huey <khuey@...ehuey.com>,
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/arch_prctl: Add ARCH_SET_XCR0 to set XCR0 per-thread
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 5:10 PM Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com> wrote:
>
> > (why would you want to record with an unusual XCR0?)
>
Hmm. I don't personally have a strong objection to allowing XCR0 to
be overridden as long as it's done reasonably sanely. And maybe
requires a sysctl to be enabled.
Would it make matters easier if tasks with nonstandard XCR0 were not
allowed to use ptrace() at all? And if ARCH_SET_XCR0 were disallowed
if the caller is tracing anyone?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists