[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210331174908.4655f2a41a7b1bbec36fae47@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2021 17:49:08 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: fix user_stack_pointer() for ptrace()
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 09:44:47 +0100 Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@...too.org> wrote:
> ia64 has two stacks:
> - memory stack (or stack), pointed at by by r12
> - register backing store (register stack), pointed at
> ar.bsp/ar.bspstore with complications around dirty
> register frame on CPU.
>
> In https://bugs.gentoo.org/769614 Dmitry noticed that
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO returns register stack instead
> memory stack.
>
> The bug comes from the fact that user_stack_pointer() and
> current_user_stack_pointer() don't return the same register:
>
> ulong user_stack_pointer(struct pt_regs *regs) { return regs->ar_bspstore; }
> #define current_user_stack_pointer() (current_pt_regs()->r12)
>
> The change gets both back in sync.
>
> I think ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO) is the only affected user
> by this bug on ia64.
>
> The change fixes 'rt_sigreturn.gen.test' strace test where
> it was observed initially.
>
I assume a cc:stable is justified here?
The bug seems to have been there for 10+ years, so there isn't a lot of
point in looking for the Fixes: reference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists