From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Kyle Huey <khuey@pernos.co>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: arm64: Register modification during syscall entry/exit stop
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 11:19:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200527101929.GT5031@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200527095528.GC11111@willie-the-truck>
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:55:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 02:56:35AM -0400, Keno Fischer wrote:
> > Just ran into this issue again, with what I think may be most compelling
> > example yet why this is problematic:
> >
> > The tracee incurred a signal, we PTRACE_SYSEMU'd to the rt_sigreturn,
> > which the tracer tried to emulate by applying the state from the signal frame.
> > However, the PTRACE_SYSEMU stop is a syscall-stop, so the tracer's write
> > to x7 was ignored and x7 retained the value it had in the signal handler,
> > which broke the tracee.
>
> Yeah, that sounds like a good justification to add a way to stop this. Could
> you send a patch, please?
>
> Interestingly, I *thought* the current behaviour was needed by strace, but I
> can't find anything there that seems to require it. Oh well, we're stuck
> with it anyway.
The fact that PTRACE_SYSEMU is only implemented for a few arches makes
we wonder whether it was a misguided addition that should not be ported
to new arches... i.e., why does hardly anyone need it? But I haven't
attempted to understand the history.
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?
If SYSEMU was obviously always broken, perhaps we can withdraw support
for it. Assuming nobody is crazy enough to try to emulate execve() I
can't see anything other than sigreturn that would be affected by this
issue though. So maybe SYSEMU isn't broken enough to justify
withdrawal.
Cheers
---Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-27 10:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-19 1:05 arm64: Register modification during syscall entry/exit stop Keno Fischer
2020-05-19 8:15 ` Will Deacon
2020-05-19 8:37 ` Keno Fischer
2020-05-20 17:41 ` Will Deacon
2020-05-23 5:35 ` Keno Fischer
2020-05-24 6:56 ` Keno Fischer
2020-05-27 9:55 ` Will Deacon
2020-05-27 10:19 ` Dave Martin [this message]
2020-05-31 9:33 ` Will Deacon
2020-05-31 16:13 ` Keno Fischer
2020-06-01 9:14 ` Dave Martin
2020-06-01 9:23 ` Keno Fischer
2020-06-01 9:52 ` Dave Martin
2020-05-31 16:20 ` Keno Fischer
2020-06-01 9:23 ` Dave Martin
2020-06-01 9:40 ` Keno Fischer
2020-06-01 9:59 ` Dave Martin
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=20200527101929.GT5031@arm.com \
--to=dave.martin@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=keno@juliacomputing.com \
--cc=khuey@pernos.co \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).