All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
	wad@chromium.org, "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 14:56:27 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5143990B.9000007@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1674827.FAh5HIjCC0@sifl>

On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote:
>>> Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32
>>> implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x40000000, that
>>> could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number
>>> would be the same as a x86_64 syscall.  While that patch was a nice
>>> way to simplify the code, it went a bit too far by adding the mask to
>>> syscall_get_nr(); returning the masked syscall numbers can cause
>>> confusion with callers that expect syscall numbers matching the x32
>>> ABI, e.g. unmasked syscall numbers.
>>>
>>> This patch fixes this by simply removing the mask from syscall_get_nr()
>>> while preserving the other changes from the original commit.  While
>>> there are several syscall_get_nr() callers in the kernel, most simply
>>> check that the syscall number is greater than zero, in this case this
>>> patch will have no effect.  Of those remaining callers, they appear
>>> to be few, seccomp and ftrace, and from my testing of seccomp without
>>> this patch the original commit definitely breaks things; the seccomp
>>> filter does not correctly filter the syscalls due to the difference in
>>> syscall numbers in the BPF filter and the value from syscall_get_nr().
>>> Applying this patch restores the seccomp BPF filter functionality on
>>> x32.
>>>
>>> I've tested this patch with the seccomp BPF filters as well as ftrace
>>> and everything looks reasonable to me; needless to say general usage
>>> seemed fine as well.
>>
>> I just wanted to check and see where things stood with this patch.  I'm not
>> overly concerned about how this problem is solved, just that it is solved. 
>> If someone else has a better approach that is fine with me; I'll even make
>> the offer to do additional testing if needed.
> 
> Anyone?  The seccomp filter bits are completely broken on x32 and I'd like to 
> get this fixed, if not with this patch then something else - I'm more than 
> happy to test/verify/etc whatever solution is deemed best ...
> 

Seems good to me -- H.J., do you seen any problem with this?

	-hpa

>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
>>> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
>>> Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h |    4 ++--
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
>>> b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h index 1ace47b..2e188d6 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h
>>> @@ -29,13 +29,13 @@ extern const unsigned long sys_call_table[];
>>>
>>>   */
>>>  
>>>  static inline int syscall_get_nr(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs
>>>
>>> *regs) {
>>> -	return regs->orig_ax & __SYSCALL_MASK;
>>> +	return regs->orig_ax;
>>>
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static inline void syscall_rollback(struct task_struct *task,
>>>  
>>>  				    struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>  
>>>  {
>>>
>>> -	regs->ax = regs->orig_ax & __SYSCALL_MASK;
>>> +	regs->ax = regs->orig_ax;
>>>
>>>  }
>>>  
>>>  static inline long syscall_get_error(struct task_struct *task,


  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-15 22:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-02-15 17:21 Paul Moore
2013-02-15 19:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-02-15 20:52   ` Paul Moore
2013-02-26 20:58 ` Paul Moore
2013-03-15 21:15   ` Paul Moore
2013-03-15 21:56     ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2013-03-15 22:18       ` H.J. Lu
2013-03-25 20:55         ` Paul Moore
2013-04-02 21:31           ` Paul Moore
2013-04-03  0:17 ` [tip:x86/urgent] " tip-bot for Paul Moore

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5143990B.9000007@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=hjl.tools@gmail.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.