lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jul]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ptrace: seccomp: Return value when the call was already invalid
On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 09:56:50PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 04, 2020 at 01:33:56PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 08:52:05AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 04:44:27PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 08:17:19AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 03, 2020 at 09:39:14AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > > > > index 5f5b868292f5..a13661f44818 100644
> > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > > > > @@ -121,12 +121,10 @@ static void el0_svc_common(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno, int sc_nr,
> > > > > > user_exit();
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if (has_syscall_work(flags)) {
> > > > > > - /* set default errno for user-issued syscall(-1) */
> > > > > > - if (scno == NO_SYSCALL)
> > > > > > - regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
> > > > > > - scno = syscall_trace_enter(regs);
> > > > > > - if (scno == NO_SYSCALL)
> > > > > > + if (syscall_trace_enter(regs))
> > > > > > goto trace_exit;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + scno = regs->syscallno;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > invoke_syscall(regs, scno, sc_nr, syscall_table);
> > > > >
> > > > > What effect do either of these patches have on the existing seccomp
> > > > > selftests: tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf ?
> > > >
> > > > Tests! Thanks, I'll have a look.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > (And either way, that this behavioral difference went unnoticed means we
> > > need to add a test to the selftests for this patch.)
> >
> > Unsurprisingly, I don't think the tests go near this. I get 75/77 passes
> > on arm64 defconfig with or without these changes.
>
> (What doesn't pass for you? I tried to go find kernelci.org test output,
> but it doesn't appear to actually run selftests yet?)

Sorry, realised I forgot to reply to this point. I was seeing assertion
failures in 'global.user_notification_with_tsync' and
'user_notification_sibling_pid_ns'. I started looking into the first one,
saw an -EACCESS kicking around, re-ran the tests as root and now they all
pass.

Are they expected to pass as a normal user?

Will

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-07-10 14:43    [W:0.860 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site