Re: PTRACE_SYSCALL && vsyscall (Was: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check)

2013-01-13 Thread u3557
Hi, > I would not say this is a bug but let me repeat, no need to convince me. > > Please feel free to re-send the patch(es) I sent to maintainers. Sorry, > I can't push these changes into Linus's tree. So here again is the patch that I need so badly - clearly it fixes a bug and harms nobody: --

Re: PTRACE_SYSCALL && vsyscall (Was: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check)

2013-01-09 Thread u3557
Hi Everyone, > On 01/08, Pedro Alves wrote: >> >> On 12/04/2012 05:59 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> > But If we want to allow to trace vsyscall's, hw bp doesn't look very >> > nice imo. HBP_NUM = 4 and you need to setup 3 bp's to trace them all. >> >> Irrespective of the whole syscall tracing iss

Re: PTRACE_SYSCALL && vsyscall (Was: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check)

2012-12-05 Thread u3557
Dear Jan, > x86 debug registers are already very scarce. Besides that userland > applications know they have 4 of them available so it would also break > them. If a userland application wants to cheat, then it has no need to bypass the debug registers: even if there were 4096 of them, covering t

Re: PTRACE_SYSCALL && vsyscall (Was: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check)

2012-12-04 Thread u3557
Dear Oleg, > Yes, I understand, so DR_RW_EXECUTE should probably work. And I even > sent the patch (untested/uncompiled). But given that even the simple > bugfix which started this thread was ignored by maintainers, I am > not sure how we can convince them this change makes sense ;) Just to confi

Re: PTRACE_SYSCALL && vsyscall (Was: arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check)

2012-12-02 Thread u3557
Hi Oleg, > However. Of course it would be nice to avoid the new option. IMO it > would be better to do nothing ;) vsyscall is deprecated, and EMULATE > is x86-specific. The problem is that the current static glibc invokes the vsyscall page, so statically-linked 3rd-party executables that were dis

Re: [PATCH] arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check

2012-11-20 Thread u3557
Hi Oleg, > Or. Perhaps we can define TRAP_VSYSCALL and change emulate_vsyscall() to > do > > > if (current->ptrace && test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) > send_sigtrap(TRAP_VSYSCALL, ...); > > if it returns true? > I wish it were possible, but the vsyscall page is entered in

Re: [PATCH] arch_check_bp_in_kernelspace: fix the range check

2012-11-20 Thread u3557
Dear Steve, > But here, there's no prejudice between tasks. All tasks will now hit the > breakpoint regardless of if it is being traced or not. Just to clarify, there is no intention to allow conventional breakpoints in the vsyscall page - that would indeed be a disaster affecting all other proce