Re: [PATCH 1/2] alpha/ptrace: Record and handle the absence of switch_stack

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

 



Hi Al,


Am 21.06.2021 um 14:27 schrieb Al Viro:
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?

The check is only triggered when syscall tracing (I set a flag on trace entry, and clear that on trace exit)... From the WARN_ONCE stack dump, it appears that I get the warning from inside the syscall, not syscall_trace().

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...

And that's where my problem may be - I stupidly forgot to set the 'all registers saved' flag before calling syscall_trace() ...

I'll fix that and try again. Sorry for the noise!

Cheers,

	Michael







[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