| Message ID | 1412243176-16192-3-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should > be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value. > This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here: > > when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call > and modify a return value at syscall entry. > > In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as > a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned, > especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall. > So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to > change a return value at syscall exit. > > Please also note: > * syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and > audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call > (that is, -1). > In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry() > might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call > being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry(). > > * syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected > in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS) > is not used in this case, we may neglect the case. > > Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 8 ++++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 4 ++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ > #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR 0x10000 > #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR 0x10004 > #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR 0x10008 > + > +/* > + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1 > + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL). > + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check. > + */ > +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no) ((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1) I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the mask (the cast is enough). > + > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */ > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S > @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ > #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> > #include <asm/errno.h> > #include <asm/esr.h> > +#include <asm/ptrace.h> > #include <asm/thread_info.h> > #include <asm/unistd.h> > > @@ -671,6 +672,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc) > __sys_trace: > mov x0, sp > bl syscall_trace_enter > + cmp w0, #-1 // skip the syscall? > + b.eq __sys_trace_return_skipped > adr lr, __sys_trace_return // return address > uxtw scno, w0 // syscall number (possibly new) > mov x1, sp // pointer to regs > @@ -685,6 +688,7 @@ __sys_trace: > > __sys_trace_return: > str x0, [sp] // save returned x0 > +__sys_trace_return_skipped: > mov x0, sp > bl syscall_trace_exit > b ret_to_user > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, > > asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > + unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno; > + > if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) > tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); > > @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno); > > audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno, > - regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > + regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], > + regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > + > + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) && > + IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) { > + /* > + * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1). Compatibility with what? arch/arm/? > + * > + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this > + * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to > + * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this > + * might result in a bogus value being returned. This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so, why is that acceptable? > + * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal > + * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY), > + * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this > + * case, we may neglect the case. > + */ I think can you remove thise NOTE, it's not very informative. 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 10/08/2014 11:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: >> If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should >> be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value. >> This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here: >> >> when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call >> and modify a return value at syscall entry. >> >> In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as >> a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned, >> especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall. >> So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to >> change a return value at syscall exit. >> >> Please also note: >> * syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and >> audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call >> (that is, -1). >> In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry() >> might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call >> being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry(). >> >> * syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected >> in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS) >> is not used in this case, we may neglect the case. >> >> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 8 ++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 4 ++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h >> index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h >> @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ >> #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR 0x10000 >> #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR 0x10004 >> #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR 0x10008 >> + >> +/* >> + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1 >> + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL). >> + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check. >> + */ >> +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no) ((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1) > > I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we > already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into > syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the > mask (the cast is enough). I remember it was necessary for compat PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL, but will double-check it anyway. >> + >> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ >> >> /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */ >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S >> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ >> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> >> #include <asm/errno.h> >> #include <asm/esr.h> >> +#include <asm/ptrace.h> >> #include <asm/thread_info.h> >> #include <asm/unistd.h> >> >> @@ -671,6 +672,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc) >> __sys_trace: >> mov x0, sp >> bl syscall_trace_enter >> + cmp w0, #-1 // skip the syscall? >> + b.eq __sys_trace_return_skipped >> adr lr, __sys_trace_return // return address >> uxtw scno, w0 // syscall number (possibly new) >> mov x1, sp // pointer to regs >> @@ -685,6 +688,7 @@ __sys_trace: >> >> __sys_trace_return: >> str x0, [sp] // save returned x0 >> +__sys_trace_return_skipped: >> mov x0, sp >> bl syscall_trace_exit >> b ret_to_user >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >> @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, >> >> asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >> { >> + unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno; >> + >> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) >> tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); >> >> @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >> trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno); >> >> audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno, >> - regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); >> + regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], >> + regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); >> + >> + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) && >> + IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) { >> + /* >> + * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1). > > Compatibility with what? arch/arm/? with the case where a process is *not* traced (including audit). >> + * >> + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this >> + * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to >> + * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this >> + * might result in a bogus value being returned. > > This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so, > why is that acceptable? I mean that syscall(-1) always returns -1 with ENOSYS. Let's think about the case that we didn't have this 'if' statement. If a debugger catches an user-issued syscall(-1), but let it go without doing anything (especially changing a value in x0), this syscall will return an original value in x0, which is the first argument of syscall(-1). I mentioned this as "bogus." In this way, a traced process would see a different behavior of syscall(-1). (On arm, this doesn't happen because syscall(-1) is supposed to raise SIGILL.) (On x86, this doesn't happen, probably, because syscall arguments are passed via a stack and we can set a default return value in a register to ENOSYS.) To avoid this incompatibility, there is no way but to always return -1 in this path because the kernel doesn't know whether a debugger let x0 unchanged on purpose or not. This is also the reason why I wanted to have a dedicated ptrace command to set a return value in skipping a system call. If we don't care about such erroneous (and exceptional) behaviors, we don't need this 'if' statement. Did I make it clear? >> + * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal >> + * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY), >> + * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this >> + * case, we may neglect the case. >> + */ > > I think can you remove thise NOTE, it's not very informative. Okey. Also remove descriptions from a commit message. -Takahiro AKASHI > 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 Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:29:33AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > On 10/08/2014 11:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > >> index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h > >> @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ > >> #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR 0x10000 > >> #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR 0x10004 > >> #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR 0x10008 > >> + > >> +/* > >> + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1 > >> + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL). > >> + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check. > >> + */ > >> +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no) ((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1) > > > > I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we > > already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into > > syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the > > mask (the cast is enough). > > I remember it was necessary for compat PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL, but > will double-check it anyway. Ok, thanks. > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c > >> @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, > >> > >> asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > >> { > >> + unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno; > >> + > >> if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) > >> tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); > >> > >> @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > >> trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno); > >> > >> audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno, > >> - regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > >> + regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], > >> + regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); > >> + > >> + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) && > >> + IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) { > >> + /* > >> + * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1). > > > > Compatibility with what? arch/arm/? > > with the case where a process is *not* traced (including audit). Ok, please make that explicit in the comment. > >> + * > >> + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this > >> + * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to > >> + * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this > >> + * might result in a bogus value being returned. > > > > This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so, > > why is that acceptable? > > I mean that syscall(-1) always returns -1 with ENOSYS. > > Let's think about the case that we didn't have this 'if' statement. > If a debugger catches an user-issued syscall(-1), but let it go without > doing anything (especially changing a value in x0), this syscall will > return an original value in x0, which is the first argument of syscall(-1). > I mentioned this as "bogus." > In this way, a traced process would see a different behavior of syscall(-1). > (On arm, this doesn't happen because syscall(-1) is supposed to raise SIGILL.) > (On x86, this doesn't happen, probably, because syscall arguments are passed > via a stack and we can set a default return value in a register to ENOSYS.) In which case, it's worth mentioning this in the comment and being explicit that this only applies to -1, as that's the same value we use to indicate that the syscall should be skipped. syscall(-2), for example, doesn't have an issue and will always return -ENOSYS. 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/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR 0x10000 #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR 0x10004 #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR 0x10008 + +/* + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1 + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL). + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check. + */ +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no) ((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1) + #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */ diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ #include <asm/asm-offsets.h> #include <asm/errno.h> #include <asm/esr.h> +#include <asm/ptrace.h> #include <asm/thread_info.h> #include <asm/unistd.h> @@ -671,6 +672,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc) __sys_trace: mov x0, sp bl syscall_trace_enter + cmp w0, #-1 // skip the syscall? + b.eq __sys_trace_return_skipped adr lr, __sys_trace_return // return address uxtw scno, w0 // syscall number (possibly new) mov x1, sp // pointer to regs @@ -685,6 +688,7 @@ __sys_trace: __sys_trace_return: str x0, [sp] // save returned x0 +__sys_trace_return_skipped: mov x0, sp bl syscall_trace_exit b ret_to_user diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) { + unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno; + if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER); @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno); audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno, - regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); + regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], + regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]); + + if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) && + IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) { + /* + * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1). + * + * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this + * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to + * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this + * might result in a bogus value being returned. + * + * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal + * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY), + * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this + * case, we may neglect the case. + */ + regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS; + } return regs->syscallno; }
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value. This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here: when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call and modify a return value at syscall entry. In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned, especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall. So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to change a return value at syscall exit. Please also note: * syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call (that is, -1). In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry() might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry(). * syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS) is not used in this case, we may neglect the case. Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h | 8 ++++++++ arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S | 4 ++++ arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)