Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <a5b07aa9-96ea-a9b5-13db-e5dcbd7760e6@intel.com>
 <BEA3CCB8-5127-4E6A-9696-E293C00BFA82@amacapital.net> <CABV8kRxqcCmPKtX3DDOf+47Re1hO1gMeUPhCd6HtDP0-SpcSBw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrVmsWZ+w6C4RV50DWoL0Qaiy+S6BtXr=QKQEg3MYgAc6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABV8kRxfMNxzy8r2P4GKj-22i+GMj=VDfPWAZB-VSgfrsQsjCA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALCETrWTDrcynTwpWZ6u6JXRL1rz6_vakLK7=BqMjCPCkQ+9dg@mail.gmail.com> <CABV8kRzbGgF4Uc9+VyzBUiH-kGfMALd8tDtjE3hjyE2Z5VD3-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRzbGgF4Uc9+VyzBUiH-kGfMALd8tDtjE3hjyE2Z5VD3-g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:16:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CABV8kRz0nxSu=Nr-ViGamKd=vZ5-v6=+CFRC19hB+CdQ28C4yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] x86/arch_prctl: Add ARCH_SET_XCR0 to set XCR0 per-thread
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
        Kyle Huey <khuey@kylehuey.com>,
        "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 9:14 PM Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com> wrote:
>
> > Would it make matters easier if tasks with nonstandard XCR0 were not
> > allowed to use ptrace() at all?  And if ARCH_SET_XCR0 were disallowed
> > if the caller is tracing anyone?
>
> That would be fine by me (as long as you're still allowed to ptrace them of
> course).

Sorry, I realized after I had hit send that this wording may not be clear.
What I meant was that it would need to be able to have an external ptracer
(with unmodified XCR0) attach to the task, even if it had modified its XCR0.
I don't think you were suggesting that that wouldn't be possible,
but I just wanted to make sure.