Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 9/3/2020 9:11 AM, Dave Hansen wrote:
On 9/3/20 9:09 AM, Yu, Yu-cheng wrote:
If the debugger is going to write an MSR, only in the third case would
this make a slight sense.  For example, if the system has CET enabled,
but the task does not have CET enabled, and GDB is writing to a CET MSR.
  But still, this is strange to me.

If this is strange, then why do we even _implement_ writes?


For example, if the task has CET enabled, and it is in a control protection fault, the debugger can clear the task's IBT state, or unwind the shadow stack, etc. But if the task does not have CET enabled (its CET MSRs are in INIT state), it would make sense for the PTRACE call to return failure than doing something else, right?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux