Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 10:59:25 +0100
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To:     Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Cc:     Kyle Huey <khuey@pernos.co>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: arm64: Register modification during syscall entry/exit stop
Message-ID: <20200601095925.GZ5031@arm.com>
References: <20200519081551.GA9980@willie-the-truck>
 <CABV8kRzYzBrdzC1_opmmdpW63N2htfOsAUZ+RjiSDsy=SJW6Yg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200520174149.GB27629@willie-the-truck>
 <CABV8kRzjCCsjVeRsBD7U_Lo0==sBw9EKm=1z7g=60KyJvJLZBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABV8kRxfet2RXXNcUoTKwfVzFWEQfxAkXUX4M5XhkP3nc-0+rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200527095528.GC11111@willie-the-truck>
 <20200527101929.GT5031@arm.com>
 <CABV8kRwhsPhhqUXS46Rwh-xDEDY2q=KSd-xz1W-pu4Gy4KVp8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200601092329.GX5031@arm.com>
 <CABV8kRzkLiVuqxT3+8c1o8m_OuROtXgfowQcrMVnrxu=CiGB=w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRzkLiVuqxT3+8c1o8m_OuROtXgfowQcrMVnrxu=CiGB=w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 05:40:28AM -0400, Keno Fischer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:23 AM Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > Can't PTRACE_SYSEMU be emulated by using PTRACE_SYSCALL, cancelling the
> > > > syscall at the syscall enter stop, then modifying the regs at the
> > > > syscall exit stop?
> > >
> > > Yes, it can. The idea behind SYSEMU is to be able to save half the
> > > ptrace traps that would require, in theory making the ptracer
> > > a decent amount faster. That said, the x7 issue is orthogonal to
> > > SYSEMU, you'd have the same issues if you used PTRACE_SYSCALL.
> >
> > Right, I just wondered whether there was some deeper difference between
> > the two approaches.
> 
> You're asking about a new regset vs trying to do it via ptrace option?

I meant SYSEMU versus SYSCALL + cancellation and emulating the syscall
at the syscall exit stop.

i.e., I was trying to understand whether SYSEMU is just a convenience,
or does some magic that can't be reproduced by other means.

> I don't think there's anything a ptrace option can do that a new regset
> that replicates the same registers (I'm gonna propose adding orig_x0,
> while we're at it and changing the x0 semantics a bit, will have
> those details with the patch) wouldn't be able to do . The reason I
> originally thought it might have to be a ptrace option is because
> the register modification currently gets applied in the syscall entry
> code to the actual regs struct, so I thought you might have to know
> to preserve those registers. However, then I realized that you could
> just change the regset accessors to emulate the old behavior, since
> we do already store all the required information (what kind of stop
> we're currently at) in order to be able to answer the ptrace
> informational queries. So doing that it probably just all around
> easier. I guess NT_PRSTATUS might also rot, but I guess strace
> doesn't really have to stop using it, since it doesn't care about
> the x7 value nor does it need to modify it.

I think NT_PRSTATUS probably doesn't need to change.

Having a duplicate regset feels like a worse outcome that having a new
ptrace option.  Undocumentedly different things already happen to the
regs depending on how the tracee stopped, so adding a new special case
doesn't seem to justify creating a new regset.

Cheers
---Dave