[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200703154426.GA19406@willie-the-truck>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 16:44:27 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Keno Fischer <keno@...iacomputing.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: ptrace: seccomp: Return value when the call was already invalid
On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 08:17:19AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 09:39:14AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > index 5f5b868292f5..a13661f44818 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > @@ -121,12 +121,10 @@ static void el0_svc_common(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno, int sc_nr,
> > user_exit();
> >
> > if (has_syscall_work(flags)) {
> > - /* set default errno for user-issued syscall(-1) */
> > - if (scno == NO_SYSCALL)
> > - regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
> > - scno = syscall_trace_enter(regs);
> > - if (scno == NO_SYSCALL)
> > + if (syscall_trace_enter(regs))
> > goto trace_exit;
> > +
> > + scno = regs->syscallno;
> > }
> >
> > invoke_syscall(regs, scno, sc_nr, syscall_table);
>
> What effect do either of these patches have on the existing seccomp
> selftests: tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf ?
Tests! Thanks, I'll have a look.
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists