linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: ptrace: Add is_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: <1e13b428-1dbd-55ff-ed2f-5ac7f6562689@windriver.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Apr 2021 16:54:22 +0800
From:   He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
To:     Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, oleg@...hat.com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, paul@...l-moore.com,
        eparis@...hat.com, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: ptrace: Add is_syscall_success to handle
 compat



On 4/19/21 8:19 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 02:34:41PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 01:33:22PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:55:31PM +0800, He Zhe wrote:
>>>> The general version of is_syscall_success does not handle 32-bit
>>>> compatible case, which would cause 32-bit negative return code to be
>>>> recoganized as a positive number later and seen as a "success".
>>>>
>>>> Since is_compat_thread is defined in compat.h, implementing
>>>> is_syscall_success in ptrace.h would introduce build failure due to
>>>> recursive inclusion of some basic headers like mutex.h. We put the
>>>> implementation to ptrace.c
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: He Zhe <zhe.he@...driver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h |  3 +++
>>>>  arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c      | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>>>> index e58bca832dff..3c415e9e5d85 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>>>> @@ -328,6 +328,9 @@ static inline void regs_set_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long rc)
>>>>  	regs->regs[0] = rc;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +extern inline int is_syscall_success(struct pt_regs *regs);
>>>> +#define is_syscall_success(regs) is_syscall_success(regs)
>>>> +
>>>>  /**
>>>>   * regs_get_kernel_argument() - get Nth function argument in kernel
>>>>   * @regs:	pt_regs of that context
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>>>> index 170f42fd6101..3266201f8c60 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>>>> @@ -1909,3 +1909,13 @@ int valid_user_regs(struct user_pt_regs *regs, struct task_struct *task)
>>>>  	else
>>>>  		return valid_native_regs(regs);
>>>>  }
>>>> +
>>>> +inline int is_syscall_success(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	unsigned long val = regs->regs[0];
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (is_compat_thread(task_thread_info(current)))
>>>> +		val = sign_extend64(val, 31);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return !IS_ERR_VALUE(val);
>>>> +}
>>> It's better to use compat_user_mode(regs) here instead of
>>> is_compat_thread(). It saves us from worrying whether regs are for the
>>> current context.
>>>
>>> I think we should change regs_return_value() instead. This function
>>> seems to be called from several other places and it has the same
>>> potential problems if called on compat pt_regs.
>> I think this is a problem we created for ourselves back in commit:
>>
>>   15956689a0e60aa0 ("arm64: compat: Ensure upper 32 bits of x0 are zero on syscall return)
>>
>> AFAICT, the perf regs samples are the only place this matters, since for
>> ptrace the compat regs are implicitly truncated to compat_ulong_t, and
>> audit expects the non-truncated return value. Other architectures don't
>> truncate here, so I think we're setting ourselves up for a game of
>> whack-a-mole to truncate and extend wherever we need to.
>>
>> Given that, I suspect it'd be better to do something like the below.
>>
>> Will, thoughts?
> I think perf is one example, but this is also visible to userspace via the
> native ptrace interface and I distinctly remember needing this for some
> versions of arm64 strace to work correctly when tracing compat tasks.
>
> So I do think that clearing the upper bits on the return path is the right
> approach, but it sounds like we need some more work to handle syscall(-1)
> and audit (what exactly is the problem here after these patches have been
> applied?)

IIUC, IS_ERR_VALUE could handle -1, did I miss something? Thanks.

Regards,
Zhe

>
> Will