lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 1/3] arm64: ptrace: reload a syscall number after ptrace operations
On 07/23/2014 05:15 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 2:14 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
> <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Arm64 holds a syscall number in w8(x8) register. Ptrace tracer may change
>> its value either to:
>> * any valid syscall number to alter a system call, or
>> * -1 to skip a system call
>>
>> This patch implements this behavior by reloading that value into syscallno
>> in struct pt_regs after tracehook_report_syscall_entry() or
>> secure_computing(). In case of '-1', a return value of system call can also
>> be changed by the tracer setting the value to x0 register, and so
>> sys_ni_nosyscall() should not be called.
>>
>> See also:
>> 42309ab4, ARM: 8087/1: ptrace: reload syscall number after
>> secure_computing() check
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 2 ++
>> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> index 5141e79..de8bdbc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> @@ -628,6 +628,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc)
>> __sys_trace:
>> mov x0, sp
>> bl syscall_trace_enter
>> + cmp w0, #-1 // skip syscall?
>> + b.eq ret_to_user
>> adr lr, __sys_trace_return // return address
>> uxtw scno, w0 // syscall number (possibly new)
>> mov x1, sp // pointer to regs
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> index 70526cf..100d7d1 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/audit.h>
>> #include <linux/compat.h>
>> +#include <linux/errno.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/sched.h>
>> #include <linux/mm.h>
>> @@ -1109,9 +1110,21 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>
>> asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> + unsigned long saved_x0, saved_x8;
>> +
>> + saved_x0 = regs->regs[0];
>> + saved_x8 = regs->regs[8];
>> +
>> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
>> tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
>>
>> + regs->syscallno = regs->regs[8];
>> + if ((long)regs->syscallno == ~0UL) { /* skip this syscall */
>> + regs->regs[8] = saved_x8;
>> + if (regs->regs[0] == saved_x0) /* not changed by user */
>> + regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
>
> I'm not sure this is right compared to other architectures. Generally
> when a tracer performs a syscall skip, it's up to them to also adjust
> the return value. They may want to be faking a syscall, and what if
> the value they want to return happens to be what x0 was going into the
> tracer? It would have no way to avoid this -ENOSYS case. I think
> things are fine without this test.

Yeah, I know this issue, but was not sure that setting a return value
is mandatory. (x86 seems to return -ENOSYS by default if not explicitly
specified.)
Is "fake a system call" a more appropriate word than "skip"?

I will defer to Will.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> -Kees
>
>> + }
>> +
>> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT))
>> trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno);
>>
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>
>
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-23 09:41    [W:0.145 / U:25.828 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site