> On Nov 29, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 8:33 AM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This seems to work...
>>
>> + .if \create_gap == 1
>> + .rept 6
>> + pushq 5*8(%rsp)
>> + .endr
>> + .endif
>> +
>> -idtentry int3 do_int3 has_error_code=0
>> +idtentry int3 do_int3 has_error_code=0
>> create_gap=1
>
> Ugh. Doesn't this entirely screw up the stack layout, which then
> screws up task_pt_regs(), which then breaks ptrace and friends?
>
> ... and you'd only notice it for users that use int3 in user space,
> which now writes random locations on the kernel stack, which is then a
> huge honking security hole.
>
> It's possible that I'm confused, but let's not play random games with
> the stack like this. The entry code is sacred, in scary ways.
>
> So no. Do *not* try to change %rsp on the stack in the bp handler.
> Instead, I'd suggest:
>
> - just restart the instruction (with the suggested "ptregs->rip --")
>
> - to avoid any "oh, we're not making progress" issues, just fix the
> instruction yourself to be the right call, by looking it up in the
> "what needs to be fixed" tables.
>
> No?
I thought that too. I think it deadlocks. CPU A does text_poke_bp(). CPU B is
waiting for a spinlock with IRQs off. CPU C holds the spinlock and hits the
int3. The int3 never goes away because CPU A is waiting for CPU B to handle
the sync_core IPI.
Or do you think we can avoid the IPI while the int3 is there?
