DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 8F616C054915
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:27:37 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>,
        Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] get_nr_restart_syscall() should return
 __NR_ia32_restart_syscall if __USER32_CS
Message-ID: <20170328162736.GA3983@redhat.com>
References: <20170328145413.GA3164@redhat.com>
 <20170328145432.GA3163@redhat.com>
 <CALCETrWgyLUae9w9HmXVfM0XmhUcP7fWo4H1Jx8jG7FdF7hURw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrWgyLUae9w9HmXVfM0XmhUcP7fWo4H1Jx8jG7FdF7hURw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1225
Lines: 38

On 03/28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> > get_nr_restart_syscall() checks TS_I386_REGS_POKED but this bit is only
> > set if debugger is 32-bit. If a 64-bit debugger restores the registers
> > of a 32-bit debugee outside of syscall exit path get_nr_restart_syscall()
> > wrongly returns __NR_restart_syscall.
>
> I had sent a patch that introduced a new syscall nr, but it's not
> quite safe because it could break seccomp-using programs.

Ah, indeed...

> But your
> patch here is also screwy.

Yes, yes, it doesn't try to solve all possible problems, I even mentioned
this in the changelog.

> How about we store the syscall arch to be restored in task_struct
> along with restart_block?

Yes, perhaps we will have to finally do this. Not really nice too.

> the way there without heuristics as nasty as yours.

I agree it will be better, but I refuse to treat them as mine checks ;)

> P.S. __USER32_CS is the wrong check even if we used your approach.
> user_64bit_regs() is much better.

Yes, thanks.  If only I understood what cs == pv_info.extra_user_64bit_cs
actually means...


OK, please ignore this patch, I'll try to make another fix.

Oleg.