Re: [REGRESSION] x86/debug: After PTRACE_SINGLESTEP DR_STEP is no longer reported in dr6

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 04:30:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

> > @@ -935,6 +936,26 @@ static __always_inline void exc_debug_user(struct pt_regs *regs,
> >         irqentry_enter_from_user_mode(regs);
> >         instrumentation_begin();
> >
> > +       /*
> > +        * Clear the virtual DR6 value, ptrace routines will set bits here for
> > +        * things we want signals for.
> > +        */
> > +       current->thread.virtual_dr6 = 0;
> > +
> > +       /*
> > +        * If PTRACE requested SINGLE(BLOCK)STEP, make sure to reflect that in
> > +        * the ptrace visible DR6 copy.
> > +        */
> > +       if (test_thread_flag(TIF_BLOCKSTEP) || test_thread_flag(TIF_SINGLESTEP))
> > +               current->thread.virtual_dr6 |= (dr6 & DR_STEP);
> 
> I'm guessing that this would fail a much simpler test, though: have a
> program use PUSHF to set TF and then read out DR6 from the SIGTRAP.  I
> can whip up such a test if you like.

Kyle also mentioned it. The reason I didn't do that is because ptrace()
didn't set the TF, so why should it see it in ptrace_get_debugreg(6) ?

> Is there any compelling reason not to just drop the condition and do:
> 
> current->thread.virtual_dr6 |= (dr6 & DR_STEP);
> 
> unconditionally?  This DR6 cause, along with ICEBP, have the
> regrettable distinctions of being the only causes that a user program
> can trigger all on its own without informing the kernel first.  This
> means that we can't fully separate the concept of "user mode is
> single-stepping itself" from "ptrace or something else is causing the
> kernel to single step a program."

As per the other reply; TF and INT1 should work just fine. virtual_dr6
has nothing to do with that.