linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm: always update thread

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20181126234456.GB30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
Date:   Mon, 26 Nov 2018 23:44:56 +0000
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
To:     Rafael David Tinoco <rafael.tinoco@...aro.org>
Cc:     Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Timothy E Baldwin <T.E.Baldwin99@...bers.leeds.ac.uk>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: always update thread_info->syscall

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:41:11PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:33:03PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:53:35PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote:
> > > Right now, only way for task->thread_info->syscall to be updated is if
> > > if _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK is set in current's task thread_info->flags
> > > (similar to what has_syscall_work() checks for arm64).
> > > 
> > > This means that "->syscall" will only be updated if we are tracing the
> > > syscalls through ptrace, for example. This is NOT the same behavior as
> > > arm64, when pt_regs->syscallno is updated in the beginning of svc0
> > > handler for *every* syscall entry.
> > 
> > So when was it decided that the syscall number will always be required
> > (we need it to know how far back this has to be backported).
> 
> PS, I rather object to the fact that the required behaviour seems to
> change, arch maintainers aren't told about it until... some test is
> created at some random point in the future which then fails.
> 
> Surely there's a better way to communicate changes in requirements
> than discovery-by-random-bug-report ?

Final comment for tonight - the commit introducing /proc/*/syscall says:

    This adds /proc/PID/syscall and /proc/PID/task/TID/syscall magic files.
    These use task_current_syscall() to show the task's current system call
    number and argument registers, stack pointer and PC.  For a task blocked
    but not in a syscall, the file shows "-1" in place of the syscall number,
    followed by only the SP and PC.  For a task that's not blocked, it shows
    "running".

Please validate that a blocked task does indeed show -1 with your patch
applied.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up