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;
Date:   Mon, 11 Jan 2021 21:00:27 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>, tdevries@suse.com,
        x86-ml <x86@kernel.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: gdbserver + fsgsbase kaputt
Message-ID: <20210111200027.GH25645@zn.tnic>
References: <20210111181520.GE25645@zn.tnic>
 <CALCETrV98776mNd20v8r+JXt0uOUKemd_YnDYDoLXN_LDfQnog@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV98776mNd20v8r+JXt0uOUKemd_YnDYDoLXN_LDfQnog@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 11:27:38AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hmm.  Can you try booting with unsafe_fsgsbase and bisecting further?

Well, that bisection ended in that patch:

# first bad commit: [b745cfba44c152c34363eea9e052367b6b1d652b] x86/cpu: Enable FSGSBASE on 64bit by default and add a chicken bit

so I can't go further.

Or do you mean I should add "unsafe_fsgsbase" to grub cmdline and bisect
with fsgsbase enabled in all test kernels?

> And maybe send me your test binary?

It is trivial:

int
main (void)
{
  return 0;
}

how can that make any difference or are you thinking compiler differences?

Lemme send it to you.

> I tried to reproduce this, but it worked fine, even if I compile the
> test program with -fstack-protector-all.

Hmm.

> Off the top of my head, I would have expected this to fix it:
> 
> commit 40c45904f818c1f6555294ca27afc5fda4f09e68
> Author: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
> Date:   Fri Jun 26 10:24:29 2020 -0700
> 
>     x86/ptrace: Fix 32-bit PTRACE_SETREGS vs fsbase and gsbase

More hmm.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette