On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 04:55:26PM +1300, Michael Schmitz wrote:
Previous version of patch 1 did overwrite a syscall return value that was changed by ptrace or seccomp (in regs->d0) by -ENOSYS when skipping a syscall. Branch directly to ret_from_syscall instead of falling through to badsys (which must set -ENOSYS). I'm sure this can be done more elegantly. Patch 3 used the wrong struct definition for ARCH_REGS - the kernel ptrace code copies 19 registers (from syscall stack and switch_stack, pt_regs only contains the 14 from the syscall stack). Stack overflow ensues.
Hi, Thanks for expanding seccomp support to m68k! I happened to see this land in Linus's tree, but it was news to me that it was under development. Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl in the future: SECURE COMPUTING M: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> R: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> R: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> S: Supported T: git git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/seccomp F: Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst F: include/linux/seccomp.h F: include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h F: kernel/seccomp.c F: tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h F: tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/* K: \bsecure_computing K: \bTIF_SECCOMP\b
With these changes, 79 of 94 seccomp_bpf tests now succeed.
I'm curious which tests are not passing? Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook
