| Message ID | 1412243176-16192-2-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Akashi, On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > To allow tracer to be able to change/skip a system call by re-writing > a syscall number, there are several approaches: > > (1) modify x8 register with ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET), and handle this case > later on in syscall_trace_enter(), or > (2) support ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) as on arm > > Thinking of the fact that user_pt_regs doesn't expose 'syscallno' to > tracer as well as that secure_computing() expects a changed syscall number > to be visible, especially case of -1, before this function returns in > syscall_trace_enter(), we'd better take (2). > > Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h | 1 + > arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++++++++++++- > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > index 6913643..49c6174 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > > #include <asm/hwcap.h> > > +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL 23 > > /* > * PSR bits > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) > long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, > unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) > { > - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); > + int ret; > + > + switch (request) { > + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: > + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; > + ret = 0; > + break; > + default: > + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); > + break; > + } > + > + return ret; > } I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > Hi Akashi, > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> To allow tracer to be able to change/skip a system call by re-writing >> a syscall number, there are several approaches: >> >> (1) modify x8 register with ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET), and handle this case >> later on in syscall_trace_enter(), or >> (2) support ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) as on arm >> >> Thinking of the fact that user_pt_regs doesn't expose 'syscallno' to >> tracer as well as that secure_computing() expects a changed syscall number >> to be visible, especially case of -1, before this function returns in >> syscall_trace_enter(), we'd better take (2). >> >> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h | 1 + >> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >> index 6913643..49c6174 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >> >> #include <asm/hwcap.h> >> >> +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL 23 >> >> /* >> * PSR bits >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) >> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, >> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) >> { >> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >> + int ret; >> + >> + switch (request) { >> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: >> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; >> + ret = 0; >> + break; >> + default: >> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + return ret; >> } > > I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't > we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement > something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially since only these architectures implement this at the moment. This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which will have those changes isolated, etc. -Kees
On 10/09/2014 12:30 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >> Hi Akashi, >> >> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>> To allow tracer to be able to change/skip a system call by re-writing >>> a syscall number, there are several approaches: >>> >>> (1) modify x8 register with ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET), and handle this case >>> later on in syscall_trace_enter(), or >>> (2) support ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) as on arm >>> >>> Thinking of the fact that user_pt_regs doesn't expose 'syscallno' to >>> tracer as well as that secure_computing() expects a changed syscall number >>> to be visible, especially case of -1, before this function returns in >>> syscall_trace_enter(), we'd better take (2). >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> >>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h | 1 + >>> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++++++++++++- >>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >>> index 6913643..49c6174 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h >>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >>> >>> #include <asm/hwcap.h> >>> >>> +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL 23 >>> >>> /* >>> * PSR bits >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) >>> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, >>> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) >>> { >>> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>> + int ret; >>> + >>> + switch (request) { >>> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: >>> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; >>> + ret = 0; >>> + break; >>> + default: >>> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>> + break; >>> + } >>> + >>> + return ret; >>> } >> >> I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't >> we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement >> something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? > > Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then > later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially > since only these architectures implement this at the moment. +1 :) -Takahiro AKASHI > This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid > touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review > this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which > will have those changes isolated, etc. > > -Kees > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) > >> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, > >> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) > >> { > >> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); > >> + int ret; > >> + > >> + switch (request) { > >> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: > >> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; > >> + ret = 0; > >> + break; > >> + default: > >> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); > >> + break; > >> + } > >> + > >> + return ret; > >> } > > > > I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't > > we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement > > something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? > > Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then > later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially > since only these architectures implement this at the moment. Why? It should be really straightforward to do this in core code from the get-go and experience shows that, if we don't do it now, it will never happen. > This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid > touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review > this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which > will have those changes isolated, etc. But this doesn't need to touch any other architectures... Will -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Hi Will, Kees #Sorry for this late ping, On 10/09/2014 06:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) >>>> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, >>>> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) >>>> { >>>> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>>> + int ret; >>>> + >>>> + switch (request) { >>>> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: >>>> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; >>>> + ret = 0; >>>> + break; >>>> + default: >>>> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + return ret; >>>> } >>> >>> I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't >>> we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement >>> something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? >> >> Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then >> later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially >> since only these architectures implement this at the moment. > > Why? It should be really straightforward to do this in core code from the > get-go and experience shows that, if we don't do it now, it will never > happen. How should I deal with this issue? I would be able to go either way. Other than that, I will submit v8 patch series with a few very minor updates: - use compat_uint_t in struct compat_siginfo - use a new call interface of secure_computing(void) - modify and clarify comments in syscall_trace_enter() Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI >> This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid >> touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review >> this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which >> will have those changes isolated, etc. > > But this doesn't need to touch any other architectures... > > Will > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 6:40 PM, AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Will, Kees > > #Sorry for this late ping, > > > On 10/09/2014 06:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 04:30:18PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>>> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>>>> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view >>>>> *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) >>>>> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, >>>>> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) >>>>> { >>>>> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>>>> + int ret; >>>>> + >>>>> + switch (request) { >>>>> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: >>>>> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; >>>>> + ret = 0; >>>>> + break; >>>>> + default: >>>>> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); >>>>> + break; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + return ret; >>>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. >>>> Can't >>>> we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement >>>> something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface? >>> >>> >>> Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then >>> later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially >>> since only these architectures implement this at the moment. >> >> >> Why? It should be really straightforward to do this in core code from the >> get-go and experience shows that, if we don't do it now, it will never >> happen. > > > How should I deal with this issue? I would be able to go either way. It sounds like Will would be happiest with PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL being extracted from arm/ and arm64/ so I'd recommend doing that. It could maybe be its own patch series, too. > Other than that, I will submit v8 patch series with a few very minor > updates: > - use compat_uint_t in struct compat_siginfo > - use a new call interface of secure_computing(void) > - modify and clarify comments in syscall_trace_enter() Sounds great, thank you! -Kees > > Thanks, > -Takahiro AKASHI > > >>> This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid >>> touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review >>> this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which >>> will have those changes isolated, etc. >> >> >> But this doesn't need to touch any other architectures... >> >> Will >> >
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h index 6913643..49c6174 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ #include <asm/hwcap.h> +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL 23 /* * PSR bits diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task) long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request, unsigned long addr, unsigned long data) { - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); + int ret; + + switch (request) { + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL: + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data; + ret = 0; + break; + default: + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data); + break; + } + + return ret; } enum ptrace_syscall_dir {
To allow tracer to be able to change/skip a system call by re-writing a syscall number, there are several approaches: (1) modify x8 register with ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET), and handle this case later on in syscall_trace_enter(), or (2) support ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) as on arm Thinking of the fact that user_pt_regs doesn't expose 'syscallno' to tracer as well as that secure_computing() expects a changed syscall number to be visible, especially case of -1, before this function returns in syscall_trace_enter(), we'd better take (2). Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h | 1 + arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++++++++++++- 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)