Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:36:55 +0300
From:   "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
        Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@altlinux.org>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
        Breno Leitao <leitao@debian.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@redhat.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] powerpc/ptrace: replace ptrace_report_syscall() with
 a tracehook call
Message-ID: <20181210133655.GH11942@altlinux.org>
References: <87ftw12nyn.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <20181119210139.GA8360@altlinux.org>
 <87efbe166y.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <20181203031823.GE11573@altlinux.org>
 <20181207011946.GA18558@altlinux.org>
 <87y391k2tq.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
 <20181207154255.GA28964@altlinux.org>
 <20181207155605.GB28964@altlinux.org>
 <20181207185226.GB31278@altlinux.org>
 <20181210132806.GA4177@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181210132806.GA4177@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 02:28:07PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/07, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >
> > Please make either v5 or v6 edition of this fix, or any similar fix,
> > into v4.20.
>=20
> IIUC, v5 above means
>=20
> 	[PATCH v5 23/25] powerpc/ptrace: replace ptrace_report_syscall() with a =
tracehook call
>=20
> you sent in another series...

They just happen to have the same v5 here and there.
In that series I included the most trivial variant of the change.

> >  long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  {
> > +	struct thread_info *ti;
> > +	u32 cached_flags;
> > +
> >  	user_exit();
> > =20
> > -	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) {
> > -		ptrace_report_syscall(regs);
> > -		/*
> > -		 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution. We want to
> > -		 * avoid clobbering any register also, thus, not 'gotoing'
> > -		 * skip label.
> > -		 */
> > -		return -1;
> > -	}
> > +	ti =3D current_thread_info();
> > +	cached_flags =3D READ_ONCE(ti->flags) &
> > +		       (_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE |
> > +			_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
> > =20
> > -	/*
> > -	 * The tracer may decide to abort the syscall, if so tracehook
> > -	 * will return !0. Note that the tracer may also just change
> > -	 * regs->gpr[0] to an invalid syscall number, that is handled
> > -	 * below on the exit path.
> > -	 */
> > -	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE) &&
> > -	    tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> > -		goto skip;
> > +	if (cached_flags & (_TIF_SYSCALL_EMU | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) {
> > +		int rc =3D tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> > +
> > +		if (unlikely(cached_flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * A nonzero return code from
> > +			 * tracehook_report_syscall_entry() tells us
> > +			 * to prevent the syscall execution, but
> > +			 * we are not going to execute it anyway.
> > +			 *
> > +			 * Returning -1 will skip the syscall execution.
> > +			 * We want to avoid clobbering any register also,
> > +			 * thus, not 'gotoing' skip label.
> > +			 */
> > +			return -1;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (rc) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * The tracer decided to abort the syscall.
> > +			 * Note that the tracer may also just change
> > +			 * regs->gpr[0] to an invalid syscall number,
> > +			 * that is handled below on the exit path.
> > +			 */
> > +			goto skip;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> > =20
> >  	/* Run seccomp after ptrace; allow it to set gpr[3]. */
> >  	if (do_seccomp(regs))
> > @@ -3293,7 +3309,7 @@ long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  	if (regs->gpr[0] >=3D NR_syscalls)
> >  		goto skip;
> > =20
> > -	if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT)))
> > +	if (unlikely(cached_flags & _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT))
>=20
> I will leave this to maintainers, but to me this change looks good and im=
o it
> also cleanups the code.
>=20
> However I am not sure cached_flags should include _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT=
=2E If
> nothing else, the caller can sleep in ptrace_stop() unpredictably long and
> TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT can be set/cleared meanwhile.

I agree, we shouldn't cache _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT.


--=20
ldv

--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=bgMo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gMR3gsNFwZpnI/Ts--