[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <546D7860.2010300@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:13:04 +0900
From: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: "keescook@...omium.org" <keescook@...omium.org>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
"dsaxena@...aro.org" <dsaxena@...aro.org>,
"arndb@...db.de" <arndb@...db.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/6] arm64: ptrace: allow tracer to skip a system call
On 11/20/2014 04:06 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 08:46:19AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> On 11/18/2014 11:04 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:10:34AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> + if (((int)regs->syscallno == -1) && (orig_syscallno == -1)) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * user-issued syscall(-1):
>>>> + * RESTRICTION: We always return ENOSYS whatever value is
>>>> + * stored in x0 (a return value) at this point.
>>>> + * Normally, with ptrace off, syscall(-1) returns -ENOSYS.
>>>> + * With ptrace on, however, if a tracer didn't pay any
>>>> + * attention to user-issued syscall(-1) and just let it go
>>>> + * without a hack here, it would return a value in x0 as in
>>>> + * other system call cases. This means that this system call
>>>> + * might succeed and see any bogus return value.
>>>> + * This should be definitely avoided.
>>>> + */
>>>> + regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I'm still really uncomfortable with this, and it doesn't seem to match what
>>> arch/arm/ does either.
>>
>> Yeah, I know but
>> as I mentioned before, syscall(-1) will be signaled on arm, and so we don't
>> have to care about a return value :)
>
> What does x86 do?
On x86, syscall(-1) returns -ENOSYS if not traced, and we can change a return
value if traced.
>>> Doesn't it also prevent a tracer from skipping syscall(-1)?
>>
>> Syscall(-1) will return -ENOSYS whether or not a syscallno is explicitly
>> replaced with -1 by a tracer, and, in this sense, it is *skipped*.
>
> Ok, but now userspace sees -ENOSYS for a skipped system call in that case,
> whereas it would usually see whatever the trace put in x0, right?
Yes.
If you don't really like this behavior, how about this patch instead of my [2/6] patch?
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index 726b910..1ef57d0 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -668,8 +668,15 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc)
* switches, and waiting for our parent to respond.
*/
__sys_trace:
+ cmp w8, #-1 // default errno for invalid
+ b.ne 1f // system call
+ mov x0, #-ENOSYS
+ str x0, [sp, #S_X0]
+1:
mov x0, sp
bl syscall_trace_enter
+ cmp w0, #-1 // skip the syscall?
+ b.eq __sys_trace_return_skipped
adr lr, __sys_trace_return // return address
uxtw scno, w0 // syscall number (possibly new)
mov x1, sp // pointer to regs
@@ -684,6 +691,7 @@ __sys_trace:
__sys_trace_return:
str x0, [sp] // save returned x0
+__sys_trace_return_skipped:
mov x0, sp
bl syscall_trace_exit
b ret_to_user
With this change, I believe, syscall(-1) returns -ENOSYS by default whether traced
or not, and still you can change a return value when tracing.
(But a drawback here is that a tracer will see -ENOSYS in x0 even at syscall entry
for syscall(-1).)
-Takahiro AKASHI
> Will
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists