[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0813ec5-b163-cc11-bfc9-e9d08c9c4ff2@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 16:52:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Robert O'Callahan" <robert@...llahan.org>
Cc: "Bae, Chang Seok" <chang.seok.bae@...el.com>,
Kyle Huey <me@...ehuey.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Shankar, Ravi V" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] x86/cpu fsgsbase breaks TLS in 32 bit rr tracees on
a 64 bit system
On 2020-08-24 14:10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> PTRACE_READ_SEGMENT_DESCRIPTOR to read a segment descriptor.
>
> PTRACE_SET_FS / PTRACE_SET_GS: Sets FS or GS and updates the base accordingly.
>
> PTRACE_READ_SEGMENT_BASE: pass in a segment selector, get a base out.
> You would use this to populate the base fields.
>
> or perhaps a ptrace SETREGS variant that tries to preserve the old
> base semantics and magically sets the bases to match the selectors if
> the selectors are nonzero.
>
> Do any of these choices sound preferable to any of you?
>
My suggestion would be to export the GDT and LDT as a (readonly or mostly
readonly) regset(s) rather than adding entirely new operations. We could allow
the LDT and the per-thread GDT entries to be written, subject to the same
limitations as the corresponding system calls.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists