ARM: ptrace: Restore syscall skipping and restart while tracing
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 ARM: ptrace: Restore syscall skipping and restart while tracing
Since commit 4e57a4ddf6b0 ("ARM: 9107/1: syscall: always store thread_info->abi_syscall"), the seccomp selftests "syscall_errno", "syscall_faked", and "syscall_restart" have been broken. This was related to two issues:
- seccomp and PTRACE depend on using the special value of "-1" for skipping syscalls. This value wasn't working because it was getting masked by __NR_SYSCALL_MASK in both PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL and get_syscall_nr().
- the syscall entry label "local_restart" is used for resuming syscalls interrupted by signals, but the updated syscall number (in scno) was not being stored in current_thread_info()->abi_syscall, causing traced syscall restarting to fail.
Explicitly test for -1 in PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL and get_syscall_nr(), leaving it exposed when present, allowing tracers to skip syscalls again.
Move the AEABI-only assignment of current_thread_info()->abi_syscall after the "local_restart" label to allow tracers to survive syscall restarting.
---
Note that I haven't tested OABI at all, and AEABI+OABI_COMPAT doesn't work with seccomp. I booted an AEABI system under AEABI+OABI_COMPAT, but I wasn't able to test tracing...
--- arch/arm/include/asm/syscall.h | 3 +++ arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S | 5 +++-- arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +++-- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
arch/arm/include/asm/syscall.h +3 -0
@@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ static inline int syscall_get_nr(struct task_struct *task,if (IS_ENABLED (CONFIG_AEABI ) && !IS_ENABLED (CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT ))return task_thread_info (task)->abi_syscall; +if (task_thread_info (task)->abi_syscall ==-1 ) +return -1 ; +return task_thread_info (task)->abi_syscall & __NR_SYSCALL_MASK; }
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S +3 -2
@@ -246,8 +246,6 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) bic scno, scno, #0xff000000 @ mask off SWI op-code str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] eor scno, scno, #__NR_SYSCALL_BASE @ check OS number -#else - str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] #endif /* * Reload the registers that may have been corrupted on entry to
@@ -256,6 +254,9 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) TRACE( ldmia sp, {r0 - r3} ) local_restart: +#if defined(CONFIG_AEABI) && !defined(CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT) + str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart +#endif ldr r10, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS] @ check for syscall tracing stmdb sp!, {r4, r5} @ push fifth and sixth args
arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c +3 -2
@@ -783,8 +783,9 @@ long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,break ;case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL : -task_thread_info (child)->abi_syscall = data & - __NR_SYSCALL_MASK; +if (data !=-1 ) + data &= __NR_SYSCALL_MASK; +task_thread_info (child)->abi_syscall = data; ret =0 ;break ;
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1
Quoted 4 lines · Kees Cook
Since commit
4e57a4ddf6b0("ARM: 9107/1: syscall: always storethread_info->abi_syscall"), the seccomp selftests "syscall_errno", "syscall_faked", and "syscall_restart" have been broken. This was related to two issues:
While it looks like my patch introduced both problems, it might be better to split your fix into two bits.
Quoted 8 lines
- seccomp and PTRACE depend on using the special value of "-1" for skipping syscalls. This value wasn't working because it was getting masked by
__NR_SYSCALL_MASKin bothPTRACE_SET_SYSCALLandget_syscall_nr().Explicitly test for -1 in
PTRACE_SET_SYSCALLandget_syscall_nr(), leaving it exposed when present, allowing tracers to skip syscalls again.
This part looks good to me, at least it seems to be one of multiple ways of doing this, depending on how we want to encode the syscall skipping in the variable.
Quoted 8 lines
- the syscall entry label "
local_restart" is used for resuming syscalls interrupted by signals, but the updated syscall number (in scno) was not being stored in current_thread_info()->abi_syscall, causing traced syscall restarting to fail.Move the AEABI-only assignment of current_thread_info()->abi_syscall after the "
local_restart" label to allow tracers to survive syscall restarting.
I'm not following exactly what you are doing here yet, but I suspect this part is wrong:
Quoted 14 lines
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S +0
-2@@ -246,8 +246,6 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) bic scno, scno, #0xff000000 @ mask off SWI op-code str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] eor scno, scno, #__NR_SYSCALL_BASE @ check OS number -#else - str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] #endif /* * Reload the registers that may have been corrupted on entry to
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S ENTRY(vector_swi) · line 262
Quoted 9 lines
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S +3
-0@@ -256,6 +254,9 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) TRACE( ldmia sp, {r0 - r3} ) local_restart: +#if defined(CONFIG_AEABI) && !defined(CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT) + str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart +#endif ldr r10, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS] @ check for syscall tracing stmdb sp!, {r4, r5} @ push fifth and sixth args
If the local_restart code has to store the syscall number for an EABI-only kernel, wouldn't it have to also do this for a kernel with OABI-only or OABI_COMPAT support?
Arnd
Quoted 8 lines · Arnd Bergmann
Quoted 4 lines · Kees Cook
Since commit
4e57a4ddf6b0("ARM: 9107/1: syscall: always storethread_info->abi_syscall"), the seccomp selftests "syscall_errno", "syscall_faked", and "syscall_restart" have been broken. This was related to two issues:While it looks like my patch introduced both problems, it might be better to split your fix into two bits.
Okay, sounds good.
Quoted 41 lines
Quoted 8 lines
- seccomp and PTRACE depend on using the special value of "-1" for skipping syscalls. This value wasn't working because it was getting masked by
__NR_SYSCALL_MASKin bothPTRACE_SET_SYSCALLandget_syscall_nr().Explicitly test for -1 in
PTRACE_SET_SYSCALLandget_syscall_nr(), leaving it exposed when present, allowing tracers to skip syscalls again.This part looks good to me, at least it seems to be one of multiple ways of doing this, depending on how we want to encode the syscall skipping in the variable.
Quoted 8 lines
- the syscall entry label "
local_restart" is used for resuming syscalls interrupted by signals, but the updated syscall number (in scno) was not being stored in current_thread_info()->abi_syscall, causing traced syscall restarting to fail.Move the AEABI-only assignment of current_thread_info()->abi_syscall after the "
local_restart" label to allow tracers to survive syscall restarting.I'm not following exactly what you are doing here yet, but I suspect this part is wrong:
Quoted 16 lines
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S +0
-2@@ -246,8 +246,6 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) bic scno, scno, #0xff000000 @ mask off SWI op-code str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] eor scno, scno, #__NR_SYSCALL_BASE @ check OS number -#else - str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] #endif /* * Reload the registers that may have been corrupted on entry to@@ -256,6 +254,9 @@ ENTRY(vector_swi) TRACE( ldmia sp, {r0 - r3} )
Quoted 11 lines
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S ENTRY(vector_swi) · line 262
Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S +3
-0local_restart: +#if defined(CONFIG_AEABI) && !defined(CONFIG_OABI_COMPAT) + str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart +#endif ldr r10, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS] @ check for syscall tracing stmdb sp!, {r4, r5} @ push fifth and sixth argsIf the
local_restartcode has to store the syscall number for an EABI-only kernel, wouldn't it have to also do this for a kernel with OABI-only orOABI_COMPATsupport?
This is the part I wasn't sure about. Initially I was thinking it didn't matter because it's only a problem for a seccomp tracer, but I realize it might be exposed to a PTRACE tracer too. I was only able to test with EABI since seccomp is disabled for OABI_COMPAT.
Anyway, syscall restart is done this way:
movlt scno, #(__NR_restart_syscall - __NR_SYSCALL_BASE)
Can a EABI call restart an OABI syscall? I think so?
So maybe we just need to add:
str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart
after that instead of moving it like I did originally?
Let me test that...
Signature · 1 line
Kees Cook
Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 3 lines · Arnd Bergmann
If the
local_restartcode has to store the syscall number for an EABI-only kernel, wouldn't it have to also do this for a kernel with OABI-only orOABI_COMPATsupport?This is the part I wasn't sure about. Initially I was thinking it didn't matter because it's only a problem for a seccomp tracer, but I realize it might be exposed to a PTRACE tracer too. I was only able to test with EABI since seccomp is disabled for
OABI_COMPAT.
Quoted 5 lines
Anyway, syscall restart is done this way:
movlt scno, #(__NR_restart_syscall -
__NR_SYSCALL_BASE)Can a EABI call restart an OABI syscall? I think so?
There are very few differences between oabi and eabi syscalls, I think it basically comes down to
- the syscall number, and register in which it is passed to the kernel
- a few syscalls that exist for OABI backward compatibility and were deprecated before EABI was added
- a few syscalls that pass a struct with different alignment rules
- epoll_wait() uses a runtime check for the output format
It also seems like the __NR_restart_syscall path is only relevant for syscalls using restart_block for restarting, and that means it's only poll(), futex(), nanosleep(), clock_nanosleep() and their time64 counterparts. All of these are handled by the same entry points for OABI and EABI, i.e. there is no overlap with the exceptions above. Crucially, epoll does not use restart_block, unlike poll().
Quoted 5 lines
So maybe we just need to add:
str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart
after that instead of moving it like I did originally?
Yes, I think that works!
For pure EABI and pure OABI kernels, this just does the right thing, storing a plain __NR_restart_syscall in the field without an ABI marker. For an OABI compat task running on an EABI kernel, it will call the EABI version of restart_syscall(), but that is exactly the same as the OABI version, as shown above.
Arnd
Quoted 27 lines · Arnd Bergmann
Quoted 11 lines · Kees Cook
Quoted 3 lines · Arnd Bergmann
If the
local_restartcode has to store the syscall number for an EABI-only kernel, wouldn't it have to also do this for a kernel with OABI-only orOABI_COMPATsupport?This is the part I wasn't sure about. Initially I was thinking it didn't matter because it's only a problem for a seccomp tracer, but I realize it might be exposed to a PTRACE tracer too. I was only able to test with EABI since seccomp is disabled for
OABI_COMPAT.Quoted 5 lines
Anyway, syscall restart is done this way:
movlt scno, #(__NR_restart_syscall -
__NR_SYSCALL_BASE)Can a EABI call restart an OABI syscall? I think so?
There are very few differences between oabi and eabi syscalls, I think it basically comes down to
- the syscall number, and register in which it is passed to the kernel
- a few syscalls that exist for OABI backward compatibility and were deprecated before EABI was added
- a few syscalls that pass a struct with different alignment rules
-epoll_wait()uses a runtime check for the output format
Quoted 4 lines
It also seems like the
__NR_restart_syscallpath is only relevant for syscalls usingrestart_blockfor restarting, and that means it's onlypoll(),futex(),nanosleep(),clock_nanosleep()and their time64 counterparts. All of these are handled by the same entry
Right -- it's a tiny corner case I tripped over years ago while building seccomp filters, so it got added to the selftests. :)
Quoted 10 lines
points for OABI and EABI, i.e. there is no overlap with the exceptions above. Crucially, epoll does not use
restart_block, unlikepoll().Quoted 5 lines
So maybe we just need to add:
str scno, [tsk, #TI_ABI_SYSCALL] @ store scno for syscall restart
after that instead of moving it like I did originally?
Quoted 7 lines
Yes, I think that works!
For pure EABI and pure OABI kernels, this just does the right thing, storing a plain
__NR_restart_syscallin the field without an ABI marker. For an OABI compat task running on an EABI kernel, it will call the EABI version ofrestart_syscall(), but that is exactly the same as the OABI version, as shown above.
Okay, excellent. I came to the same conclusion. Patch 1 in the v2 addresses this and tested okay for me.
Thanks for looking at this!
-Kees
Signature · 1 line
Kees Cook