[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3626eea3-524e-4dbd-78dd-9ade5a346a08@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 17:05:16 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: pt_regs->ax == -ENOSYS
On 4/27/21 4:23 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> I much prefer the model of saying that the bits that make sense for
> the syscall type (all 64 for 64-bit SYSCALL and the low 32 for
> everything else) are all valid. This way there are no weird reserved
> bits, no weird ptrace() interactions, etc. I'm a tiny bit concerned
> that this would result in a backwards compatibility issue, but not
> very. This would involve changing syscall_get_nr(), but that doesn't
> seem so bad. The biggest problem is that seccomp hardcoded syscall
> nrs to 32 bit.
>
> An alternative would be to declare that we always truncate to 32 bits,
> except that 64-bit SYSCALL with high bits set is an error and results
> in ENOSYS. The ptrace interaction there is potentially nasty.
>
> Basically, all choices here kind of suck, and I haven't done a real
> analysis of all the issues...
>
OK, I really don't understand this. The *current* way of doing it causes
a bunch of ugly corner conditions, including in ptrace, which this would
get rid of. It isn't any different than passing any other argument which
is an int -- in fact we have this whole machinery to deal with that subcase.
If it makes you feel better, we could even sign-extend the value in
orig_ax, but that seems unnecessary and a bit broken to me.
-hpa
Powered by blists - more mailing lists