[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: pt_regs->ax == -ENOSYS

On 4/27/21 5:11 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 5:05 PM H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
>> On 4/27/21 4:23 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> I much prefer the model of saying that the bits that make sense for
>>> the syscall type (all 64 for 64-bit SYSCALL and the low 32 for
>>> everything else) are all valid. This way there are no weird reserved
>>> bits, no weird ptrace() interactions, etc. I'm a tiny bit concerned
>>> that this would result in a backwards compatibility issue, but not
>>> very. This would involve changing syscall_get_nr(), but that doesn't
>>> seem so bad. The biggest problem is that seccomp hardcoded syscall
>>> nrs to 32 bit.
>>> An alternative would be to declare that we always truncate to 32 bits,
>>> except that 64-bit SYSCALL with high bits set is an error and results
>>> in ENOSYS. The ptrace interaction there is potentially nasty.
>>> Basically, all choices here kind of suck, and I haven't done a real
>>> analysis of all the issues...
>> OK, I really don't understand this. The *current* way of doing it causes
>> a bunch of ugly corner conditions, including in ptrace, which this would
>> get rid of. It isn't any different than passing any other argument which
>> is an int -- in fact we have this whole machinery to deal with that subcase.
> Let's suppose we decide to truncate the syscall nr. What would the
> actual semantics be? Would ptrace see the truncated value in orig_ax?
> How about syscall user dispatch? What happens if ptrace writes a
> value with high bits set to orig_ax? Do we truncate it again? Or do
> we say that ptrace *can't* write too large a value?
> For better for worse, RAX is 64 bits, orig_ax is a 64-bit field, and
> it currently has nonsensical semantics. Redefining orig_ax as a
> 32-bit field is surely possible, but doing so cleanly is not
> necessarily any easier than any other approach. If it weren't for
> seccomp, I would say that the obviously correct answer is to just
> treat it everywhere as a 64-bit number.

We *used* to truncate the system call number; that was unsigned. It
causes massive headache to ptrace if a 32-bit ptrace wants to write -1,
which is a bit hacky.

I would personally like to see orig_ax to be the register passed in and
for the truncation to happen by syscall_get_nr().

I also note that kernel/seccomp.c and the tracing infrastructure all
expect a signed int as the system call number. Yes, orig_ax is a 64-bit
field, but so are the other register fields which doesn't necessarily
directly reflect the value of an argument -- like, say, %rdi in the case
of sys_write - it is an int argument so it gets sign extended; this is
*not* reflected in ptrace.


 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-28 02:21    [W:0.043 / U:1.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site