Re: [PATCH v5 13/25] m68k: add asm/syscall.h

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Geert,

On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 02:06:28PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 1:41 PM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 09:45:42AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 5:30 AM Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
syscall_get_* functions are required to be implemented on all
architectures in order to extend the generic ptrace API with
PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO request.

This introduces asm/syscall.h on m68k implementing all 5 syscall_get_*
functions as documented in asm-generic/syscall.h: syscall_get_nr,
syscall_get_arguments, syscall_get_error, syscall_get_return_value,
and syscall_get_arch.

Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---

Notes:
    v5: added syscall_get_nr, syscall_get_arguments, syscall_get_error,
        and syscall_get_return_value
    v1: added syscall_get_arch

--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/syscall.h
@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@

+static inline void
+syscall_get_arguments(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
+                     unsigned int i, unsigned int n, unsigned long *args)
+{
+       BUG_ON(i + n > 6);

Does this have to crash the kernel?

This is what most of other architectures do, but we could choose
a softer approach, e.g. use WARN_ON_ONCE instead.

Perhaps you can return an error code instead?

That would be problematic given the signature of this function
and the nature of the potential bug which would most likely be a usage error.

Of course to handle that, the function's signature need to be changed.
Changing it has the advantage that the error handling can be done at the
caller, in common code, instead of duplicating it for all
architectures, possibly
leading to different semantics.

Given that *all* current users of syscall_get_arguments specify i == 0
(and there is an architecture that has BUG_ON(i)), 
it should be really a usage error to get into situation where i + n > 6,
I wish a BUILD_BUG_ON could be used here instead.

I don't think it worths pushing the change of API just to convert
a "cannot happen" assertion into an error that would have to be dealt with
on the caller side.


-- 
ldv

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Video for Linux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux S/390]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux