linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] powerpc: use common ptrace_syscall_enter hook to handle _TIF_SYSCALL

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: <20190319170804.GA11525@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Mar 2019 18:08:05 +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:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:33:41PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/18, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:20:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Worse because we end up reading current_thread_info->flags twice ?
> >
> > Mostly because in my opinion ptrace_syscall_enter() buys nothing but makes
> > the caller's code less readable/understandable.
> >
> > Sure, this is subjective.
> >
>
> Based on what we have in that function today, I tend to agree. Will and
> Richard were in the opinion to consolidate SYSEMU handling

Well, personally I see no point... Again, after the trivial simplification
x86 does

	if (work & (_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) {
		ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
		if (ret || (work & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU))
			return -1L;
	}

this looks simple enough for copy-and-paste.

> If there's a better way to achieve the same

I can only say that if we add a common helper, I think it should absorb
tracehook_report_syscall_entry() and handle both TIF's just like the code
above does. Not sure this makes any sense.

Oleg.