On 21/12/2015 01:20, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 21.12.2015 um 01:03 schrieb Mickaël Salaün:
quoted
diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/skas/syscall.c b/arch/um/kernel/skas/syscall.c
index 1683b8e..65f0d1a 100644
--- a/arch/um/kernel/skas/syscall.c
+++ b/arch/um/kernel/skas/syscall.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
#include <linux/ptrace.h>
#include <kern_util.h>
#include <sysdep/ptrace.h>
+#include <sysdep/ptrace_user.h>
#include <sysdep/syscalls.h>
#include <os.h>
@@ -16,12 +17,16 @@ void handle_syscall(struct uml_pt_regs *r)
long result;
int syscall;
+ /* Save the syscall register. */
+ UPT_SYSCALL_NR(r) = PT_SYSCALL_NR(r->gp);
+
if (syscall_trace_enter(regs)) {
result = -ENOSYS;
goto out;
}
- syscall = get_syscall(r);
+ /* Get the syscall after being potentially updated with ptrace. */
+ syscall = UPT_SYSCALL_NR(r);
Doesn't this break the support for changing syscall numbers using PTRACE_SETREGS?
The logic is unchanged except updating the UPT_SYSCALL_NR before syscall_trace_enter(). I did my last tests with the x86_32 subarchitecture and all tests (from selftest/seccomp), including PTRACE_SETREGS for syscall numbers tests, passed. However, 2 of this tests still fail for x86_64 (only).
Regards,
Mickaël