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: <8735v3ex3h.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> <3C41339D-29A2-4AB1-958F-19DB0A92D8D7@amacapital.net>
 <CAHk-=wh0KoEZXPYMGkfkeVEerSCEF1AiCZSvz9TRrx=Kj74D+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrV9bCenqzzaW6Ra18tCvNP-my09decTjmLDVZZAQxR6VA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV9bCenqzzaW6Ra18tCvNP-my09decTjmLDVZZAQxR6VA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 3 May 2021 13:37:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgo6XEz3VQ9ntqzWLR3-hm1YXrXUz4_heDs4wcLe9NYvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_thread/x86: don't reset 'cs', 'ss', 'ds' and 'es'
 registers for io_threads
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Stefan Metzmacher <metze@samba.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 1:15 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 12:15 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > So generally, the IO threads are now 100% normal threads - it's
> > literally just that they never return to user space because they are
> > always just doing the IO offload on the kernel side.
> >
> > That part is lovely, but part of the "100% IO threads" really is that
> > they share the signal struct too, which in turn means that they very
> > much show up as normal threads. Again, not a problem: they really
> > _are_ normal threads for all intents and purposes.
>
> I'm a bit confused, though.  All the ptrace register access (AFAICS)
> goes through ptrace_check_attach(), which should wait until the tracee
> is stopped.  Does the io_uring thread now stop in response to ptrace
> stop requests?

Yup. They really are 100% regular threads. Things like ^Z and friends
also stop them now, and the freezer freezes them etc.

And making PTRACE_ATTACH fail just causes gdb to fail.

> Fair enough.  But I would really, really rather that gdb starts fixing
> its amazingly broken assumptions about bitness.

"Preach it, Brother"

> >    So I think Stefan's patch is reasonable, if not pretty. Literally
> > becasue of that "make these threads look even more normal"
>
> I think it's reasonable except for the bit about copying the segment
> regs.  Can we hardcode __USER_CS, etc, and, when gdb crashes or
> otherwise malfunctions for compat programs, we can say that gdb needs
> to stop sucking.

So that was actually my initial suggestion. Stefan really does seem to
care about compat programs.

Any "gdb breaks" would be good to motivate people to fix gdb, but the
thing is, presumably nobody actually wants to touch gdb with a ten
foot pole.

And a "let's break gdb to encourage people to fix it" only works if
people actually _do_ fit it. Which doesn't seem to be happening.

Two lines of kernel code seems to be the better option than hoping for
gdb to be fixed.

               Linus