On Wed, 3 Apr 2019, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Apr 2, 2019, at 1:29 PM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > >>> How about a much better fix: make the DB stack be the same size as all
> > >>> the others and just have 4 of them (DB0, DB1, DB2, and DB3. After all,
> > >>> overflowing from one debug stack into another is just as much of a bug
> > >>> as
> > >>> overflowing into a different IST stack.
> > >>
> > >> That makes sense.
> > >
> > > Except that we just have two not four.
> > >
> > > It needs some tweaking of the ist_shift stuff in entry_64.S but that's not
> > > rocket science. Famous last words....
> > >
> >
> > The ist_shift mess should probably be in C, but that’s a big can of
> > worms. That being said, why do we have it at all? Once upon a time, we’d
> > do ICEBP from user mode (or a legit breakpoint), then send a signal and
> > hit a data breakpoint, and we’d recurse. But we don’t run user debug
> > handlers on the IST stack at all anymore.
> >
> > Maybe we can convince ourselves it’s safe?
>
> Maybe. Need to think about it for a while.
What about kprobes. It has nasty reentrancy stuff as well...
Thanks,
tglx
