All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: PTRACE_SYSEMU behavior difference on arm64
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:13:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200515121346.GA22919@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRyHrDMK4o=UZZZWJMuQNjPA8Xuoj-JFF-Lsx26fBTR0WA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Keno,

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:15:35AM -0400, Keno Fischer wrote:
> The behavior of PTRACE_SYSEMU on arm64
> appears to differ substantially from that of x86 and powerpc
> (the other two architectures on which this feature is implemented).
> In particular, after PTRACE_SYSEMU the syscall will always
> be skipped on x86 and powerpc, but executed on arm64 unless
> the syscall-entry stop was again continued using PTRACE_SYSEMU.
> The skipping behavior is also documented in the manpage,
> so I suspect this may just be a bug (the skipping behavior
> makes sense to me and is what I would expect).
> The reason this happens is that `syscall_trace_enter`
> re-checks TIF_SYSCALL_EMU after the ptrace stop, but at that
> point it may have already been superseded by a new ptrace
> request. x86 and power save the original value of the flag,
> rather than acting on the new value. I can submit a patch to
> fix this, but wanted to check first whether this was intentional.
> If it is, I can fix the man page instead.

Please send a patch, since this looks like a silly bug to me. But it also
means that nobody is using this on arm64, so we could also consider removing
it entirely. Did you spot this because you are trying to use it for
something or just by inspection/unit-testing?

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: PTRACE_SYSEMU behavior difference on arm64
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 13:13:47 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200515121346.GA22919@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABV8kRyHrDMK4o=UZZZWJMuQNjPA8Xuoj-JFF-Lsx26fBTR0WA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Keno,

On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 07:15:35AM -0400, Keno Fischer wrote:
> The behavior of PTRACE_SYSEMU on arm64
> appears to differ substantially from that of x86 and powerpc
> (the other two architectures on which this feature is implemented).
> In particular, after PTRACE_SYSEMU the syscall will always
> be skipped on x86 and powerpc, but executed on arm64 unless
> the syscall-entry stop was again continued using PTRACE_SYSEMU.
> The skipping behavior is also documented in the manpage,
> so I suspect this may just be a bug (the skipping behavior
> makes sense to me and is what I would expect).
> The reason this happens is that `syscall_trace_enter`
> re-checks TIF_SYSCALL_EMU after the ptrace stop, but at that
> point it may have already been superseded by a new ptrace
> request. x86 and power save the original value of the flag,
> rather than acting on the new value. I can submit a patch to
> fix this, but wanted to check first whether this was intentional.
> If it is, I can fix the man page instead.

Please send a patch, since this looks like a silly bug to me. But it also
means that nobody is using this on arm64, so we could also consider removing
it entirely. Did you spot this because you are trying to use it for
something or just by inspection/unit-testing?

Will

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-05-15 12:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-05-15 11:15 PTRACE_SYSEMU behavior difference on arm64 Keno Fischer
2020-05-15 11:15 ` Keno Fischer
2020-05-15 12:13 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-05-15 12:13   ` Will Deacon
2020-05-15 20:43   ` Keno Fischer
2020-05-15 20:43     ` Keno Fischer

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=20200515121346.GA22919@willie-the-truck \
    --to=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=keno@juliacomputing.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    /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 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.