Will,

On 08/11/2014 06:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:35:42AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:

quoted

On 08/06/2014 12:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I found a bug in my current patch (v5). When 32-bit tracer skips a system call,
we should not update syscallno from x8 since syscallno is re-written directly
via ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).

Ah, yes. Will aarch64 have a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL option, or is this
strictly a 32-bit vs 64-bit issue?

As discussed in a few weeks ago, aarch64 won't support PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.

Well, I don't think anything was set in stone. If you have a compelling
reason why adding the new request gives you something over setting w8
directly, then we can extend ptrace.

Yeah, I think I may have to change my mind. Looking into __secure_computing(),
I found the code below:

 >     case SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER:
 >         case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE:
 >             ...
 >             if (syscall_get_nr(current, regs) < 0)
 >                 goto skip;

This implies that we should modify syscallno *before* __secure_computing() returns.

I assumed, in my next version, we could skip a system call by overwriting syscallno
with x8 in syscall_trace_enter() after __secure_computing() returns 0, and it actually
works.
But we'd better implement PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL to comply with what __secure_computing()
expects.

-Takahiro AKASHI

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel