lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 09:24:57 -0700 From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> To: Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, io-uring <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Allow signals for IO threads On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 9:00 AM Stefan Metzmacher <metze@...ba.org> wrote: > > I haven't tried it, but it seems gdb tries to use PTRACE_PEEKUSR > against the last thread tid listed under /proc/<pid>/tasks/ in order to > get the architecture for the userspace application Christ, what an odd hack. Why wouldn't it just do it on the initial thread you actually attached to? Are you sure it's not simply because your test-case was to attach to the io_uring thread? Because the io_uring thread might as well be considered to be 64-bit. > so my naive assumption > would be that it wouldn't allow the detection of a 32-bit application > using a 64-bit kernel. I'm not entirely convinced we want to care about a confused gdb implementation and somebody debugging a case that I don't believe happens in practice. 32-bit user space is legacy. And legacy isn't io_uring. If somebody insists on doing odd things, they can live with the odd results. Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists