We present a new solution framework to solve the generalized trust region subproblem (GTRS) of minimizing a quadratic objective over a quadratic constraint. More specifically, we derive a convex quadratic reformulation (CQR) via minimizing a linear objective over two convex quadratic constraints for the GTRS. We show that an optimal solution of the GTRS can be recovered from an optimal solution of the CQR. We further prove that this CQR is equivalent to minimizing the maximum of the two convex quadratic functions derived from the CQR for the case under our investigation. Although the latter minimax problem is nonsmooth, it is well-structured and convex. We thus develop two steepest descent algorithms corresponding to two different line search rules. We prove for both algorithms their global sublinear convergence rates. We also obtain a local linear convergence rate of the first algorithm by estimating the Kurdyka-Lojasiewicz exponent at any optimal solution under mild conditions. We finally demonstrate the efficiency of our algorithms in our numerical experiments. Problem (P) is known as the generalized trust region subproblem (GTRS) [44,41]. When Q 2 is an identity matrix I and b 2 = 0, c = −1/2, problem (P) reduces to the classical trust region subproblem (TRS). The TRS first arose in the trust region method for nonlinear optimization [15,49], and has found many applications including robust optimization [8] and the least square problems [50]. As a generalization, the GTRS also admits its own applications such as time of arrival problems [26] and subproblems of consensus ADMM in signal processing [29]. Over the past two decades, numerous solution methods have been developed for TRS (see [38,36,48,42,25,22,4] and references therein).Various methods have been developed for solving the GTRS under various assumptions (see [37,44,10,45,16,41,5] and references therein). Although it appears being nonconvex, the GTRS essentially enjoys Assumption 2.1. The set I P SD := {λ : Q 1 + λQ 2 0} ∩ R + is not empty, where R + is the nonnegative orthant.Assumption 2.2. The common null space of Q 1 and Q 2 is trivial, i.e., Null(Q 1 ) ∩ Null(Q 2 ) = {0}.Before introducing our CQR, let us first recall the celebrated S-lemma by definingf 1 (x) = f 1 (x) + γ with an arbitrary constant γ ∈ R.Lemma 2.3 (S-lemma [47,40]). The following two statements are equivalent: 1. The system off 1 (x) < 0 and f 2 (x) ≤ 0 is not solvable; 2. There exists µ ≥ 0 such thatf 1 (x) + µf 2 (x) ≥ 0 for all x ∈ R n .Using the S-lemma, the following lemma shows a necessary and sufficient condition under which problem (P) is bounded from below.