[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86_64,entry: Fix RCX for traced syscalls
On Sat, Jun 28, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Pavel Machek <> wrote:
> On Thu 2014-06-26 13:47:32, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 1:12 PM, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
>> > The real question is if we care that sysret and iter don't match. On 32 bits the situation is even more complex.
>> At least for 64 bits, iret vs sysret is purely a kernel implementation
>> detail (except where a tracer modifies things that are inaccessible to
>> sysret), so ISTM it's worth one instruction to make them match.
>> I noticed this thing while fiddling with moving some of the syscall
>> tracing logic to C. This isn't a real problem, but it at least made
>> me scratch my head.
> If possible, we'd like to trace programs without programs being noticed they are
> being traced. See subterfugue utility, for example.
> It is certainly worth one extra instruction.

I tend to agree.

FWIW, I haven't looked at the ia32 stuff, but it should be possible to
do something similar if it's not there already. The iret path can set
any user state it wants.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-30 17:41    [W:0.095 / U:2.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site