From: "Yu, Yu-cheng" <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
Vedvyas Shanbhogue <vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 6/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:21:10 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3967f126-f7ea-36fd-bec0-dfbbc46ef221@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1b51d89c-c7de-2032-df23-e138d1369ffa@intel.com>
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?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-03 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-25 0:26 [PATCH v11 0/9] Control-flow Enforcement: Indirect Branch Tracking, PTRACE Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 1/9] x86/cet/ibt: Add Kconfig option for user-mode Indirect Branch Tracking Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 2/9] x86/cet/ibt: User-mode Indirect Branch Tracking support Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 3/9] x86/cet/ibt: Handle signals for Indirect Branch Tracking Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 4/9] x86/cet/ibt: ELF header parsing " Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 5/9] x86/cet/ibt: Update arch_prctl functions " Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 6/9] x86/cet: Add PTRACE interface for CET Yu-cheng Yu
2020-09-02 20:03 ` Jann Horn
2020-09-02 22:13 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-09-02 23:50 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 2:53 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-09-03 4:35 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 14:26 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-03 14:54 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 16:09 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-09-03 16:11 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-03 16:15 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 16:25 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-03 16:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 16:42 ` Dave Hansen
2020-09-03 17:59 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-09-03 16:21 ` Yu, Yu-cheng [this message]
2020-09-03 16:25 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-03 0:33 ` Jann Horn
2020-09-03 2:53 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 7/9] x86/vdso/32: Add ENDBR32 to __kernel_vsyscall entry point Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 8/9] x86/vdso: Insert endbr32/endbr64 to vDSO Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:33 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-08-25 16:13 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
2020-08-25 0:26 ` [PATCH v11 9/9] x86: Disallow vsyscall emulation when CET is enabled Yu-cheng Yu
2020-08-25 0:32 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-08-25 9:14 ` Florian Weimer
2020-08-25 15:08 ` Yu, Yu-cheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3967f126-f7ea-36fd-bec0-dfbbc46ef221@intel.com \
--to=yu-cheng.yu@intel.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=bsingharora@gmail.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=esyr@redhat.com \
--cc=fweimer@redhat.com \
--cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nadav.amit@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ravi.v.shankar@intel.com \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com \
--cc=weijiang.yang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox