On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 10:06:36AM +0100, Sven Schnelle wrote:
> "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 12:35:42PM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 10:29:37AM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Feb 03, 2025 at 08:58:49AM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi Dmitry,
> >> >
> >> > > PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO is a generic ptrace API that complements
> >> > > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO by letting the ptracer modify details of
> >> > > system calls the tracee is blocked in.
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > FWIW, I am getting these on s390:
> >> >
> >> > # ./tools/testing/selftests/ptrace/set_syscall_info
> >> > TAP version 13
> >> > 1..1
> >> > # Starting 1 tests from 1 test cases.
> >> > # RUN global.set_syscall_info ...
> >> > # set_syscall_info.c:87:set_syscall_info:Expected exp_entry->nr (-1) == info->entry.nr (65535)
> >> > # set_syscall_info.c:88:set_syscall_info:wait #3: PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO #2: syscall nr mismatch
> >> > # set_syscall_info: Test terminated by assertion
> >> > # FAIL global.set_syscall_info
> >> > not ok 1 global.set_syscall_info
> >> > # FAILED: 0 / 1 tests passed.
> >> > # Totals: pass:0 fail:1 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
> >> >
> >> > I remember one of the earlier versions (v1 or v2) was working for me.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >> In v3, this test was extended to check whether PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO
> >> called immediately after PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO returns the same syscall
> >> number, and on s390 it apparently doesn't, thanks to its implementation
> >> of syscall_get_nr() that returns 0xffff in this case.
> >>
> >> To workaround this, we could either change syscall_get_nr() to return -1
> >> in this case, or add an #ifdef __s390x__ exception to the test.
> >>
> >> What would you prefer?
> >
> > OK, I'm going to apply the following s390 workaround to the test:
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ptrace/set_syscall_info.c b/tools/testing/selftests/ptrace/set_syscall_info.c
> > index 0ec69401c008..4198248ef874 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ptrace/set_syscall_info.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ptrace/set_syscall_info.c
> > @@ -71,6 +71,11 @@ check_psi_entry(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
> > const char *text)
> > {
> > unsigned int i;
> > + int exp_nr = exp_entry->nr;
> > +#if defined __s390__ || defined __s390x__
> > + /* s390 is the only architecture that has 16-bit syscall numbers */
> > + exp_nr &= 0xffff;
> > +#endif
> >
> > ASSERT_EQ(PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_ENTRY, info->op) {
> > LOG_KILL_TRACEE("%s: entry stop mismatch", text);
> > @@ -84,7 +89,7 @@ check_psi_entry(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
> > ASSERT_TRUE(info->stack_pointer) {
> > LOG_KILL_TRACEE("%s: entry stop mismatch", text);
> > }
> > - ASSERT_EQ(exp_entry->nr, info->entry.nr) {
> > + ASSERT_EQ(exp_nr, info->entry.nr) {
> > LOG_KILL_TRACEE("%s: syscall nr mismatch", text);
> > }
> > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(exp_entry->args); ++i) {
>
> Fine with me. As you already noted only 16 bit of the syscall number is
> stored in pt_regs::int_code. A quick hack would be possible to do sign
> extensions, so -1 would work. But i think this would be odd, because
> positive numbers would still be limited.
>
> So i think the patch you proposed is fine.
Thanks, I've applied this workaround in v5:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250210113336.GA887@xxxxxxxxx/
Please consider adding your Reviewed-by.
--
ldv
