From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: torvalds@linux-foundation.org (Linus Torvalds) Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 14:46:11 -0700 Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] x86: Allow breakpoints to emulate call functions In-Reply-To: <20190503152405.2d741af8@gandalf.local.home> References: <20190501202830.347656894@goodmis.org> <20190501203152.397154664@goodmis.org> <20190501232412.1196ef18@oasis.local.home> <20190502162133.GX2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190502181811.GY2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190502202146.GZ2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20190503152405.2d741af8@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <20190503214611.Mfb5RahWfj3tT5nJ7VJgxb_UjeYYLni4aJG-ztICSN0@z> On Fri, May 3, 2019@12:24 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The problem with this approach is that it would require doing the same > for x86_64, as the int3 C code is the same for both. And that may be a > bit more difficult on the x86_64 side because it's all done with a > simple flag in the idtentry macro to add the gap. That argument is weakened by the fact that we have to do _other_ things differently on 32-bit and 64-bit anyway. So we might as well have a "on 32-bit, the call emulation needs to move the pt_regs to make space" special case in the call emulation code. It's very easy to explain why. And then we'd limit the special case to where it matters (with a big comment about what's going on), rather than adding random special case handling to random _other_ places. Having to add s magic special case to "kernel_stack_pointer() is certainly not obvious. Neither is adding magic special cases to system call exit paths etc. This has been why I've been arguing against the entry code changes. Exactly because they tend to have these kind of odd cascading effects. The entry code is fragile not just because it's a complex hardware interface, but also because we know about those complex hardware interfaces in random other places. I'd much rather have the code that does special things be in one place, and be the place that *needs* to do the special thing. If we copy the pt_regs around when we do the "call" emulation, it's *really* easy to explain *exactly* what we're doing and why in *exactly* that one context where we are doing it. And it won't affect anything else, and our existing code that looks at pt_regs will work both before and after. Would it need a #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 around it because it's not needed on x86-64? Sure. But that #ifdef would be right there, and the comment that explains why the pt_regs need to be moved would also make it very obvious why it is only needed for x86-32. There's a lot of advantages to keeping your problems localized, instead of letting your random hacks escape and become problems for other, entirely unrelated, code. Linus