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  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]
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 18:20:24 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, jdike@...toit.com,
        Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
        Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc: use common ptrace_syscall_enter hook to
 handle _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU

On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -3278,35 +3278,29 @@ long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  
>  	user_exit();
>  
> -	flags = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags) &
> -		(_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE);
> -
> -	if (flags) {
> -		int rc = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> +	if (unlikely(ptrace_syscall_enter(regs))) {
> +		/*
> +		 * A nonzero return code from tracehook_report_syscall_entry()
> +		 * tells us to prevent the syscall execution, but we are not
> +		 * going to execute it anyway.
> +		 *
> +		 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution. We want to
> +		 * avoid clobbering any registers, so we don't goto the skip
> +		 * label below.
> +		 */
> +		return -1;
> +	}
>  
> -		if (unlikely(flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * A nonzero return code from
> -			 * tracehook_report_syscall_entry() tells us to prevent
> -			 * the syscall execution, but we are not going to
> -			 * execute it anyway.
> -			 *
> -			 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution. We want
> -			 * to avoid clobbering any registers, so we don't goto
> -			 * the skip label below.
> -			 */
> -			return -1;
> -		}
> +	flags = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags) & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE;

Why do we need READ_ONCE() with this change?

And now that we change a single bit "flags" doesn't look like a good name.

Again, to me this patch just makes the code look worse. Honestly, I don't
think that the new (badly named) ptrace_syscall_enter() hook makes any sense.

Oleg.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists