Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1426836
| From | Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace |
| Date | 2016-06-20 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rMb1E-2DX-45@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <rLoWZ-4M7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rLrUR-6T6-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <rLTep-8gB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rMaoV-2aV-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <rMayC-2eu-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 06/20, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > How about the simple change below for now? IIRC 32-bit task can't use > > "syscall" so if syscall_get_nr() >= 0 then even the wrong TS_COMPAT is > > not that bad, even if it "leaks" to user-mode. > > Hmm. That should fix the minor security issue, but it will even > further break cross-arch tracing: now a 32-bit tracer tracing a 64-bit > task that does int $0x80 will malfunction even more than it would > have. This is broken in any case. I mean, a 32-bit debugger can't really debug a 64-bit task. I don't think this change makes the things really worse. > Also, it relies on bizarre arch details IMO. Heh, it looks as if your patch do not ;) > I think I prefer my version, coming momentarily. I disagree... I don't really understand why do we need the additional complications for the minimal fix which doesn't look very nice anyway. But I won't argue, and your patch looks correct to me. Oleg.
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> - 2016-06-18 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> - 2016-06-18 16:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> - 2016-06-18 16:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-18 19:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-20 00:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> - 2016-06-20 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-20 18:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 19:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-20 19:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> - 2016-06-20 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-06-18 19:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-20 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 00:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-06-20 08:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH] x86/ptrace: Remove questionable TS_COMPAT usage in ptrace Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 18:40 +0200
the usage of __SYSCALL_MASK in entry_SYSCALL_64/do_syscall_64 is not consistent Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> - 2016-06-20 20:10 +0200
Re: the usage of __SYSCALL_MASK in entry_SYSCALL_64/do_syscall_64 is not consistent Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-06-21 21:10 +0200
csiph-web