[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YNCaMDQVYB04bk3j@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 13:54:56 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>,
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: Kernel stack read with PTRACE_EVENT_EXIT and io_uring threads
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 02:58:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> And I think our horrible "kernel threads return to user space when
> done" is absolutely horrifically nasty. Maybe of the clever sort, but
> mostly of the historical horror sort.
How would you prefer to handle that, then? Separate magical path from
kernel_execve() to switch to userland? We used to have something of
that sort, and that had been a real horror...
As it is, it's "kernel thread is spawned at the point similar to
ret_from_fork(), runs the payload (which almost never returns) and
then proceeds out to userland, same way fork(2) would've done."
That way kernel_execve() doesn't have to do anything magical.
Al, digging through the old notes and current call graph...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists