From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754253AbbHNL6M (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:58:12 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:35910 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752133AbbHNL6L (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Aug 2015 07:58:11 -0400
Message-ID: <55CDD7CE.5070503@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:58:06 +0200
From: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values
 wrong in VM?
References: <CAHse=S8UeYVJqRBx-_wf=jeDERTJxzM=YRH5izBpQnrCHOxcDA@mail.gmail.com> <55CCB510.3060807@redhat.com> <CAHse=S8BrL6KeQL9gwa=9TH0nqWrNxq7rcHc--pAVriG+pxBmA@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrXP0bH9nhh=aOPsiA-Bs0zNW_0xbXFhvbMPZeDV71VtZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAHse=S8OuPb4KFWBXJS6c9YdGPEH8MgpbWJ5qP79r04+4rK2Fw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXu5j+gXShOAdK93KuVide93VYA_ObyjbK-zb7CwgOLc2JCnQ@mail.gmail.com> <55CD0DAC.9080809@redhat.com> <CALCETrWj6X+zCX47iHip0Qjp88p7f3p0uWvskL357XCyvPrXVA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+55aFyA9+16Jer2nKMOs6_uhRA-egvFDSR8fgNoD9AuPLE4GQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+55aFx6Ade9UwDQ2KgsQgVMog+B9VXNYqrb1vm+EvBbkazhuA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXu5jLmby_HX6NwT5Nwr5vXT1vLVpxBpt1a4qbpxMMWTdrXmw@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrXGJQ33hDJ-GcVfrYx2qh0ewBwU5=o70UE=XuP+H2hz3g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXGJQ33hDJ-GcVfrYx2qh0ewBwU5=o70UE=XuP+H2hz3g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 08/14/2015 12:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
>>> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Does the attached patch make sense and work?
>>>
>>> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway.
>>>
>>> I still think Denys' patch also potentially changed what audit and
>>> strace see for %rax in the pt_regs to -ENOSYS, which I'm not convinced
>>> is a good change.
>>>
>>> But maybe that three-liner patch fixes the immediate problem that
>>> David sees. David?
>>
>> Your patch fixes it for me. The seccomp compat selftests pass again
>> with audit enabled.
> 
> Kees, would it be straightforward to rig up the seccomp tests to
> automatically test compat?  The x86 selftests automatically test both
> native and compat, and that might be usable as a model.  I did that
> because it's extremely easy to regress one and not the other.

BTW, why 64-bt code doesn't need this RAX read-back?