[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cd53e03b-c574-dc05-f9c0-1c8271c5a607@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 04:48:02 +0800
From: Celeste Liu <coelacanthushex@...il.com>
To: Björn Töpel <bjorn@...nel.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn@...osinc.com>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Felix Yan <felixonmars@...hlinux.org>,
Ruizhe Pan <c141028@...il.com>,
Shiqi Zhang <shiqi@...c.iscas.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] riscv: entry: set a0 prior to
syscall_enter_from_user_mode
On 2023/7/19 04:35, Celeste Liu wrote:
>
> On 2023/7/19 03:35, Björn Töpel wrote:
>> Celeste Liu <coelacanthushex@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> When we test seccomp with 6.4 kernel, we found errno has wrong value.
>>> If we deny NETLINK_AUDIT with EAFNOSUPPORT, after f0bddf50586d, we will
>>> get ENOSYS instead. We got same result with 9c2598d43510 ("riscv: entry: Save a0
>>> prior syscall_enter_from_user_mode()").
>>>
>>> After analysing code, we think that regs->a0 = -ENOSYS should be advanced before
>>> syscall_enter_from_user_mode to fix this problem. In __seccomp_filter, when
>>> seccomp rejected this syscall with specified errno, they will set a0 to return
>>> number as syscall ABI, and then return -1. This return number is finally pass
>>> as return number of syscall_enter_from_user_mode, and then is compared
>>> with NR_syscalls after converted to ulong (so it will be ULONG_MAX).
>>> The condition syscall < NR_syscalls will always be false, so regs->a0 = -ENOSYS
>>> is always executable. It covered a0 set by seccomp, so we always get
>>> ENOSYS when match seccomp RET_ERRNO rule.
>>
>> Isn't something like...
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
>> index f910dfccbf5d..15a8b4898a6c 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
>> @@ -297,7 +297,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_break(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_ecall_u(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> if (user_mode(regs)) {
>> - ulong syscall = regs->a7;
>> + long syscall = regs->a7;
>>
>> regs->epc += 4;
>> regs->orig_a0 = regs->a0;
>> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_ecall_u(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>
>> syscall = syscall_enter_from_user_mode(regs, syscall);
>>
>> - if (syscall < NR_syscalls)
>> + if (syscall > -1 && syscall < NR_syscalls)
>> syscall_handler(regs, syscall);
>> else
>> regs->a0 = -ENOSYS;
>>
>>
>> ...easier to read?
>>
>>
>> Björn
>
> It seems that your change turn it back to the beginning. If syscall == -1,
> it is supposed to go neither first nor else branch. It should do NOTHING.
> However it was still a great idea. It may be better to use a set of if-statement
> to clarify the logic.
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> index f910dfccbf5d2..d0bd725244594 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -306,7 +306,9 @@ asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_ecall_u(struct pt_regs *regs)
>
> syscall = syscall_enter_from_user_mode(regs, syscall);
>
> - if (syscall < NR_syscalls)
> + if (syscall == -1)
> + // Do nothing
> + else if (syscall < NR_syscalls)
> syscall_handler(regs, syscall);
> else
> regs->a0 = -ENOSYS;
>
Oh, it's better to reorder to:
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
index f910dfccbf5d2..932814e34ac37 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/traps.c
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ asmlinkage __visible __trap_section void do_trap_ecall_u(struct pt_regs *regs)
if (syscall < NR_syscalls)
syscall_handler(regs, syscall);
- else
+ else if (syscall != -1)
regs->a0 = -ENOSYS;
syscall_exit_to_user_mode(regs);
I will send v3 later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists