On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 01:08:11AM +0900, Roman Peniaev wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>>> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:57:02AM +0900, Roman Peniaev wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> >> > One interesting thing I noticed (which is unchanged by this series),
>>>> >> > but pulling ARM_r7 during the seccomp ptrace event shows __NR_poll,
>>>> >> > not __NR_restart_syscall, even though it was a __NR_restart_syscall
>>>> >> > trap from seccomp. Is there a better place to see the actual syscall?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> As I understand we do not push new r7 to the stack, and ptrace uses the
>>>> >> old value.
>>>> >
>>>> > And why should we push r7 to the stack? ptrace should be using the
>>>> > recorded system call number, rather than poking about on the stack
>>>> > itself.
>>>>
>>>> Probably we should not, but the behaviour comparing arm to x86 is different.
>>>
>>> We definitely should not, because changing the stacked value changes the
>>> value in r7 after the syscall has returned. We have guaranteed that the
>>> value will be preserved across syscalls for years, so we really should
>>> not be changing that.
>>
>> Yeah, we can't mess with the registers. I was just asking for
>> clarification on how this is visible to userspace.
>>
>>>
>>>> Also there is no any way from userspace to figure out what syscall was
>>>> restarted, if you do not trace each syscall enter and exit from the
>>>> very beginning.
>>>
>>> Thinking about ptrace, that's been true for years.
>>>
>>> It really depends whether you consider the restart syscall a userspace
>>> thing or a kernelspace thing. When you consider that the vast majority
>>> of syscall restarts are done internally in the kernel, and we just
>>> re-issue the syscall, it immediately brings up the question "why is
>>> the restart block method different?" and "should the restart block
>>> method be visible to userspace?"
>>>
>>> IMHO, it is prudent not to expose kernel internals to userspace unless
>>> there is a real reason to, otherwise they become part of the userspace
>>> API.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more, but restart_syscall is already visible to
>> userspace: it can be called directly, for example. And it's visible to
>> tracers.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the difference here is the visibility during trace
>> trap. On x86, it's exposed but on ARM, there's no way (that I can
>> find) to query the "true" syscall, even though the true syscall is
>> what triggers the tracer. The syscall number isn't provided by any
>> element of the ptrace event system, nor through siginfo, and must be
>> examined on a per-arch basis from registers.
>>
>> Seccomp does, however, provide a mechanism to pass arbitrary event
>> data on a TRACE event, so poll vs restart_syscall can be distinguished
>> that way.
>>
>> It seems even strace doesn't know how to find this information. For example:
>>
>> x86:
>> poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN}], 1, 4294967295
>> ) = ? ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK (Interrupted by signal)
>> --- SIGSTOP {si_signo=SIGSTOP, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=994, si_uid=1000} ---
>> --- stopped by SIGSTOP ---
>> --- SIGCONT {si_signo=SIGCONT, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=994, si_uid=1000} ---
>> restart_syscall(<... resuming interrupted call ...>
>>
>> ARM:
>> poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN}], 1, -1
>> ) = ? ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK (Interrupted by signal)
>> --- SIGSTOP {si_signo=SIGSTOP, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=20563, si_uid=0} ---
>> --- stopped by SIGSTOP ---
>> --- SIGCONT {si_signo=SIGCONT, si_code=SI_USER, si_pid=20563, si_uid=0} ---
>> poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN}], 1, -1
>>
>> Would it make sense to add REGSET_SYSTEM_CALL to ARM? (Though this
>> begs the question, "Is restart_syscall visible during a trace on
>> arm64?", which I'll have to go check...)
>
> So, some further testing:
> - native arm64 presents "poll" again even to seccomp when
> restart_syscall is triggered (both via regs[8] and
> NT_ARM_SYSTEM_CALL).
> - compat mode on arm64 _does_ show syscall_restart (via ARM_r7).
>
> Which of these behaviors is intentional? :)
>
Just want to summarize the difference.
(please, correct me if i am mistaken)
Userspace has two ways to see actual syscall number:
1. /proc/pid/syscall file
2. ptrace
So the following is the table showing what syscall number
userspace sees using proc file or doing ptrace in case of restarted poll:
x86 ARM ARM64 ARM64 compat
cat /proc/pid/syscall: NR_restart Not supported ????? ?????
ptrace: NR_restart NR_poll NR_poll NR_restart
Not supported - should be fixed by these two patches, the behaviour should
be similar to x86, i.e. userspace will see NR_restart
???? - I do not have ARM64 for testing.
Kees, could you please cat /proc/pid/syscall for those two?
I took a quick look into arm64 syscall.h/entry.S and seems it
is supported fine and the result should be equal to ptrace.
So, yes, compatibility is important, but /proc/pid/syscall never works on ARM
and ptrace output is different even among ARM architectures.
--
Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html