[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YM/5KAlgTtR6ncOl@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 02:27:52 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>,
Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@...assic.park.msu.ru>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Ley Foon Tan <ley.foon.tan@...el.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha/ptrace: Record and handle the absence of
switch_stack
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 02:01:18PM +1200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> instrumenting get_reg on m68k and using a similar patch to yours to warn
> when unsaved registers are accessed on the switch stack, I get a hit from
> getegid and getegid32, just by running a simple ptrace on ls.
>
> Going to wack those two moles now ...
Explain, please. get_reg() is called by tracer; whose state are you checking?
Because you are *not* accessing the switch stack of the caller of get_reg().
And tracee should be in something like syscall_trace() or do_notify_resume();
both have SAVE_SWITCH_STACK done by the glue...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists