Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:08:05 +0900 | From | AKASHI Takahiro <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 2/6] arm64: ptrace: allow tracer to skip a system call |
| |
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found another (big) problem. There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change 'syscallno' in pt_regs to -1 in start_thread() and restore_sigframe(), respectively.
Since syscallno is not valid anymore in syscall_trace_exit() for these system calls, we cannot create a correct syscall exit record for tracepoint in trace_sys_exit() (=> ftrace_syscall_exit()) and for audit in audit_syscall_exit().
This does not happen on arm because syscall numbers are kept in thread_info on arm.
How can we deal with this issue?
-Takahiro AKASHI
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro >>> <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> index 8876049..c54dbcc 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> @@ -1121,9 +1121,29 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, >>>> >>>> asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >>>> { >>>> + unsigned int saved_syscallno = regs->syscallno; >>>> + >>>> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) >>>> tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); >>>> >>>> + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno)) { >>>> + /* >>>> + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value of user >>>> + * issued syscall(-1) here. In order to ease this flavor, >>>> + * we need to treat whatever value in x0 as a return value, >>>> + * but this might result in a bogus value being returned. >>>> + */ >>>> + /* >>>> + * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal is >>>> + * detected in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since >>>> + * a value set to x0 here is not used in this case, we may >>>> + * neglect the case. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE) || >>>> + (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(saved_syscallno))) >>>> + regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS; >>>> + } >>>> + >>> >>> I don't have a runtime environment yet for arm64, so I can't test this >>> directly myself, so I'm just trying to eyeball this. :) >>> >>> Once the seccomp logic is added here, I don't think using -2 as a >>> special value will work. Doesn't this mean the Oops is possible by the >>> user issuing a "-2" syscall? As in, if TIF_SYSCALL_WORK is set, and >>> the user passed -2 as the syscall, audit will be called only on entry, >>> and then skipped on exit? >> >> Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case. >> syscall_trace_enter() should not return a syscallno directly, but always >> return -1 if syscallno < 0. (except when secure_computing() returns with -1) >> This also implies that tracehook_report_syscall() should also have a return value. >> >> Will, is this fine with you? > > Well, the first thing that jumps out at me is why this is being done > completely differently for arm64 and arm. I thought adding the new ptrace > requests would reconcile the differences? > > Will >
| |