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:   Tue, 30 Apr 2019 18:09:50 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.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>,
        Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
        Steve Capper <Steve.Capper@....com>,
        Haibo Xu <haibo.xu@....com>, Bin Lu <bin.lu@....com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] x86: clean up _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU handling using
 ptrace_syscall_enter hook



On 30/04/2019 17:46, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 3:49 AM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>>
>> Now that we have a new hook ptrace_syscall_enter that can be called from
>> syscall entry code and it handles PTRACE_SYSEMU in generic code, we
>> can do some cleanup using the same in syscall_trace_enter.
>>
>> Further the extra logic to find single stepping PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP
>> in syscall_slow_exit_work seems unnecessary. Let's remove the same.
>>
> 
> Unless the patch set contains a selftest that exercises all the
> interesting cases here, NAK.  To be clear, there needs to be a test
> that passes on an unmodified kernel and still passes on a patched
> kernel.  And that test case needs to *fail* if, for example, you force
> "emulated" to either true or false rather than reading out the actual
> value.
> 

Tested using tools/testing/selftests/x86/ptrace_syscall.c

Also v3 doesn't change any logic or additional call to new function as
in v2. It's just simple cleanup as suggested by Oleg.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep

Powered by blists - more mailing lists