linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ptrace: save the type of syscall-stop in ptrace

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: <20181128142006.GE30395@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Nov 2018 15:20:06 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
        Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        strace-devel@...ts.strace.io
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ptrace: save the type of syscall-stop in
 ptrace_message

On 11/28, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 02:49:14PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 11/28, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * These values are stored in task->ptrace_message by tracehook_report_syscall_*
> > > + * to describe current syscall-stop.
> > > + *
> > > + * Values for these constants are chosen so that they do not appear
> > > + * in task->ptrace_message by other means.
> > > + */
> > > +#define PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY	0x80000000U
> > > +#define PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_EXIT	0x90000000U
> > 
> > Again, I do not really understand the comment... Why should we care about
> > "do not appear in task->ptrace_message by other means" ?
> > 
> > 2/2 should detect ptrace_report_syscall() case correctly, so we can use any
> > numbers, say, 1 and 2?
> > 
> > If debugger does PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG it should know how to interpet the value
> > anyway after wait(status).
> 
> Given that without this patch the value returned by PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG
> during syscall stop is undefined, we need two different ptrace_message
> values that cannot be set by other ptrace events to enable reliable
> identification of syscall-enter-stop and syscall-exit-stop in userspace:
> if we make PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG return 0 or any other value routinely set by
> other ptrace events, it would be hard for userspace to find out whether
> the kernel implements new semantics or not.

Hmm, why? Debugger can just do ptrace(PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO, NULL), if it
returns EIO then it is not implemented?

Oleg.