public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
To: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>,
	Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]>
Cc: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Stefan Metzmacher <[email protected]>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <[email protected]>,
	io-uring <[email protected]>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_thread/x86: don't reset 'cs', 'ss', 'ds' and 'es' registers for io_threads
Date: Tue, 04 May 2021 00:56:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgqK0qUskrzeWXmChErEm32UiOaUmynWdyrjAwNzkDKaw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 03 2021 at 15:08, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:49 PM Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> To be clear, I'm suggesting that we -EINVAL the PTRACE_GETREGS calls
>> and such, not the ATTACH.  I have no idea what gdb will do if this
>> happens, though.
>
> I feel like the likelihood that it will make gdb work any better is
> basically zero.
>
> I think we should just do Stefan's patch - I assume it generates
> something like four instructions (two loads, two stores) on x86-64,
> and it "just works".
>
> Yeah, yeah, it presumably generates 8 instructions on 32-bit x86, and
> we could fix that by just using the constant __USER_CS/DS instead (no
> loads necessary) since 32-bit doesn't have any compat issues.
>
> But is it worth complicating the patch for a couple of instructions in
> a non-critical path?
>
> And I don't see anybody stepping up to say "yes, I will do the patch
> for gdb", so I really think the least pain is to just take the very
> straightforward and tested kernel patch.
>
> Yes, yes, that also means admitting to ourselves that the gdb
> situation isn't likely going to improve, but hey, if nobody in this
> thread is willing to work on the gdb side to fix the known issues
> there, isn't that the honest thing to do anyway?

GDB is one thing. But is this setup actually correct under all
circumstances?

It's all fine that we have lots of blurb about GDB, but there is no
reasoning why this does not affect regular kernel threads which take the
same code path.

Neither is there an answer what happens in case of a signal delivered to
this thread and what any other GDB/ptraced induced poking might cause.

This is a half setup user space thread which is assumed to behave like a
regular kernel thread, but is this assumption actually true?

Thanks,

        tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2021-05-03 22:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <[email protected]>
2021-05-03 16:05 ` [PATCH] io_thread/x86: don't reset 'cs', 'ss', 'ds' and 'es' registers for io_threads Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-03 19:14   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-03 20:15     ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-03 20:21       ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-03 20:37       ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-03 21:26         ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-03 21:49           ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-03 22:08             ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-03 22:56               ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-05-03 23:15                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-03 23:16                 ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-03 23:19                   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-03 23:27                   ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-03 23:48                     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-04  2:50                       ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-04 11:39                         ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-04 15:53                           ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-12  4:24                         ` Olivier Langlois
2021-05-12 17:44                           ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-12 20:55                             ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-20  4:13                               ` Olivier Langlois
2021-05-21  7:31                                 ` Olivier Langlois
2021-05-25 19:39                                   ` Olivier Langlois
2021-05-25 19:45                                     ` Olivier Langlois
2021-05-25 19:52                                     ` Jens Axboe
2021-05-25 20:23                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-05-04  8:22                       ` David Laight
2021-05-04  0:01                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-04  8:39     ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-04 15:35       ` Borislav Petkov
2021-05-04 15:55         ` Simon Marchi
2021-05-05 11:29           ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-05 21:59             ` Simon Marchi
2021-05-05 22:11               ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-05 23:12                 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-05-05 23:22                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-06  1:04                 ` Simon Marchi
2021-05-06 15:11                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-05-06  9:47                 ` David Laight
2021-05-06  9:53                   ` David Laight
2021-05-05 22:21               ` Stefan Metzmacher
2021-05-05 23:15                 ` Simon Marchi
2021-04-11 15:27 Stefan Metzmacher
2021-04-14 21:28 ` Stefan Metzmacher

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 \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /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