Message-ID: <Z5OvMgjMd3xzx4mS@example.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 16:18:10 +0100
From: Alexey Gladkov <legion@...nel.org>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...ace.io>
Cc: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Eugene Syromyatnikov <evgsyr@...il.com>,
	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
	Renzo Davoli <renzo@...unibo.it>,
	Davide Berardi <berardi.dav@...il.com>,
	strace-devel@...ts.strace.io,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.ibm.com>,
	Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
	Naveen N Rao <naveen@...nel.org>, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc: properly negate error in
 syscall_set_return_value()

On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 01:43:22AM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:28:15PM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > Le 14/01/2025 à 18:04, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit :
> > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> > > >> Le 13/01/2025 à 18:10, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit :
> > > >>> Bring syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error(),
> > > >>> and let upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This reverts commit 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in
> > > >>> syscall_set_return_value()").
> > > >>
> > > >> There is a clear detailed explanation in that commit of why it needs to
> > > >> be done.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you think that commit is wrong you have to explain why with at least
> > > >> the same level of details.
> > > > 
> > > > OK, please have a look whether this explanation is clear and detailed enough:
> > > > 
> > > > =======
> > > > powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value()
> > > > 
> > > > When syscall_set_return_value() is used to set an error code, the caller
> > > > specifies it as a negative value in -ERRORCODE form.
> > > > 
> > > > In !trap_is_scv case the error code is traditionally stored as follows:
> > > > gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE, and ccr has 0x10000000 flag set.
> > > > Here are a few examples to illustrate this convention.  The first one
> > > > is from syscall_get_error():
> > > >          /*
> > > >           * If the system call failed,
> > > >           * regs->gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE.
> > > >           */
> > > >          return (regs->ccr & 0x10000000UL) ? -regs->gpr[3] : 0;
> > > > 
> > > > The second example is from regs_return_value():
> > > >          if (is_syscall_success(regs))
> > > >                  return regs->gpr[3];
> > > >          else
> > > >                  return -regs->gpr[3];
> > > > 
> > > > The third example is from check_syscall_restart():
> > > >          regs->result = -EINTR;
> > > >          regs->gpr[3] = EINTR;
> > > >          regs->ccr |= 0x10000000;
> > > > 
> > > > Compared with these examples, the failure of syscall_set_return_value()
> > > > to assign a positive ERRORCODE into regs->gpr[3] is clearly visible:
> > > > 	/*
> > > > 	 * In the general case it's not obvious that we must deal with
> > > > 	 * CCR here, as the syscall exit path will also do that for us.
> > > > 	 * However there are some places, eg. the signal code, which
> > > > 	 * check ccr to decide if the value in r3 is actually an error.
> > > > 	 */
> > > > 	if (error) {
> > > > 		regs->ccr |= 0x10000000L;
> > > > 		regs->gpr[3] = error;
> > > > 	} else {
> > > > 		regs->ccr &= ~0x10000000L;
> > > > 		regs->gpr[3] = val;
> > > > 	}
> > > > 
> > > > This fix brings syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error()
> > > > and lets upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc.
> > > > 
> > > > Fixes: 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in syscall_set_return_value()").
> > > > =======
> > > 
> > > I think there is still something going wrong.
> > > 
> > > do_seccomp() sets regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; by default.
> > > 
> > > Then it calls __secure_computing() which returns what __seccomp_filter() 
> > > returns.
> > > 
> > > In case of error, __seccomp_filter() calls syscall_set_return_value() 
> > > with a negative value then returns -1
> > > 
> > > do_seccomp() is called by do_syscall_trace_enter() which returns -1 when 
> > > do_seccomp() doesn't return 0.
> > > 
> > > do_syscall_trace_enter() is called by system_call_exception() and 
> > > returns -1, so syscall_exception() returns regs->gpr[3]
> > > 
> > > In entry_32.S, transfer_to_syscall, syscall_exit_prepare() is then 
> > > called with the return of syscall_exception() as first parameter, which 
> > > leads to:
> > > 
> > > 	if (unlikely(r3 >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO) && is_not_scv) {
> > > 		if (likely(!(ti_flags & (_TIF_NOERROR | _TIF_RESTOREALL)))) {
> > > 			r3 = -r3;
> > > 			regs->ccr |= 0x10000000; /* Set SO bit in CR */
> > > 		}
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > By chance, because you have already changed the sign of gpr[3], the 
> > > above test fails and nothing is done to r3, and because you have also 
> > > already set regs->ccr it works.
> > > 
> > > But all this looks inconsistent with the fact that do_seccomp sets 
> > > -ENOSYS as default value
> > > 
> > > Also, when do_seccomp() returns 0, do_syscall_trace_enter() check the 
> > > syscall number and when it is wrong it goes to skip: which sets 
> > > regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS;
> > > 
> > > So really I think it is not in line with your changes to set positive 
> > > value in gpr[3].
> > > 
> > > Maybe your change is still correct but it needs to be handled completely 
> > > in that case.
> > 
> > Indeed, there is an inconsistency in !trap_is_scv case.
> > 
> > In some places such as syscall_get_error() and regs_return_value() the
> > semantics is as I described earlier: gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE
> > and ccr has 0x10000000 flag set.  This semantics is a part of the ABI and
> > therefore cannot be changed.
> > 
> > In some other places like do_seccomp() and do_syscall_trace_enter() the
> > semantics is similar to the trap_is_scv case: gpr[3] contains a negative
> > ERRORCODE and ccr is unchanged.  In addition, system_call_exception()
> > returns the system call function return value when it is executed, and
> > gpr[3] otherwise.  The value returned by system_call_exception() is passed
> > on to syscall_exit_prepare() which performs the conversion you mentioned.
> > 
> > What's remarkable is that in those places that are a part of the ABI the
> > traditional semantics is kept, while in other places the implementation
> > follows the trap_is_scv-like semantics, while traditional semantics is
> > also supported there.
> > 
> > The only case where I see some intersection is do_seccomp() where the
> > tracer would be able to see -ENOSYS in gpr[3].  However, the seccomp stop
> > is not the place where the tracer *reads* the system call exit status,
> > so whatever was written in gpr[3] before __secure_computing() is not
> > really relevant, consequently, selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf passes with
> > this patch applied as well as without it.
> > 
> > After looking at system_call_exception() I doubt this inconsistency can be
> > easily avoided, so I don't see how this patch could be enhanced further,
> > and what else could I do with the patch besides dropping it and letting
> > !trap_is_scv case be unsupported by PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO API, which
> > would be unfortunate.
> 
> If you say this would bring some consistency, I can extend the patch with
> something like this:
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c
> index 727ed4a14545..dda276a934fd 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c
> @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int do_seccomp(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	 * syscall parameter. This is different to the ptrace ABI where
>  	 * both r3 and orig_gpr3 contain the first syscall parameter.
>  	 */
> -	regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS;
> +	syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -ENOSYS, 0);
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * We use the __ version here because we have already checked
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static int do_seccomp(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	 * modify the first syscall parameter (in orig_gpr3) and also
>  	 * allow the syscall to proceed.
>  	 */
> -	regs->gpr[3] = regs->orig_gpr3;
> +	syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, 0, regs->orig_gpr3);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  	 * If we are aborting explicitly, or if the syscall number is
>  	 * now invalid, set the return value to -ENOSYS.
>  	 */
> -	regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS;
> +	syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -ENOSYS, 0);
>  	return -1;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
> index aa17e62f3754..c921e0cb54b8 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -229,14 +229,8 @@ static void check_syscall_restart(struct pt_regs *regs, struct k_sigaction *ka,
>  		regs_add_return_ip(regs, -4);
>  		regs->result = 0;
>  	} else {
> -		if (trap_is_scv(regs)) {
> -			regs->result = -EINTR;
> -			regs->gpr[3] = -EINTR;
> -		} else {
> -			regs->result = -EINTR;
> -			regs->gpr[3] = EINTR;
> -			regs->ccr |= 0x10000000;
> -		}
> +		regs->result = -EINTR;
> +		syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -EINTR, 0);
>  	}
>  }

I'm not a powerpc expert but shouldn't be used regs->gpr[3] via a
regs_return_value() in system_call_exception() ?

notrace long system_call_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long r0)
{
...
		r0 = do_syscall_trace_enter(regs);
		if (unlikely(r0 >= NR_syscalls))
			return regs->gpr[3];

	} else if (unlikely(r0 >= NR_syscalls)) {
		if (unlikely(trap_is_unsupported_scv(regs))) {
			/* Unsupported scv vector */
			_exception(SIGILL, regs, ILL_ILLOPC, regs->nip);
			return regs->gpr[3];
		}
		return -ENOSYS;
	}
}

-- 
Rgrds, legion

Powered by blists - more mailing lists