Re: SYSCALL, ptrace and syscall restart breakages (Re: [RFC] weird crap with vdso on uml/i386)

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 08/21/2011 06:41 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If people are using syscall directly, we're pretty much stuck. No
> amount of "that's hopelessly wrong" will ever matter. We don't break
> existing binaries.
> 
> That said, I'd *hope* that everybody uses the vdso32, simply because
> user programs are not supposed to know which CPU they are running on
> and if that CPU even *supports* the syscall instruction. In which case
> it may be possible that we can play games with the vdso thing. But
> that really would be conditional on "nobody ever reports a failure".

I think we found that out with the vsyscall emulation issue last cycle.
 It works, so it will have been used, somewhere...

> But if that's possible, maybe we can increment the RIP by 2 for
> 'syscall', and slip an "'int 0x80" after the syscall instruction in
> the vdso there? Resulting in the same pseudo-solution I suggested for
> sysenter...

I think we have the above problem.

The problem here is that the syscall state is actually more complex than
we retain: the entire state is given by (entry point, register state);
with that amount of state we have all the information needed to *either*
extract the syscall arguments *or* the register contents.  Without
those, we can only represent one of the two possible metalevels (right
now we represent the higher-level metalevel, the argument vector), but
we need both for different usages.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.