[PATCH] arm: ptrace: fix syscall modification under PTRACE_O_TRACESECCOMP

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 04:39:21PM +0100, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> >> What's the state of seccomp on arm64? I saw a series back in March,
> >> >> but nothing since then? It looked complete, but I haven't set up a
> >> >> test environment yet to verify.
> >> >
> >> > I think Akashi was going to repost `real soon now' so we can include them
> >> > for 3.17. He missed the merge window last time around.
> >>
> >> I took a quick look at the current implementation of ptrace.
> >> ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET/SETREGSET), eventually gpr_get/set(), handles only
> >> 'struct user_pt_regs', and we have no way to modify orig_x0 nor syscallno
> >> in 'struct pt_regs' directly.
> >> So it seems to me that we can't change a system call by ptrace().
> >> Do I misunderstand anything?
> >
> > No, it looks like you have a point here. I don't think userspace has any
> > business with orig_x0, but changing syscallno is certainly useful. I can
> > think of two ways to fix this:
> >
> >   (1) Updating syscallno based on w8, but this ties us to the current ABI
> >       and could get messy if this register changes in the future.
> >
> >   (2) Adding a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL request, like we have for arch/arm/,
> >       but that means adding arch-specific stuff to arch_ptrace (which
> >       currently goes straight to ptrace_request on arm64).
> >
> > It looks like x86 uses orig_ax, which I *think* means we would go with
> > (1) above if we followed their lead.
> 
> w8 is a real register, right?  On x86, at least orig_ax isn't a real
> register, so it's quite unlikely to conflict with hardware stuff.

Yeah, w8 is the hardware register which the Linux ABI uses for the system
call number. I was thinking We could allow the debugger/tracer to update
the syscall number by updating that register, or do you see an issue with
that? (other than tying us to the current ABI).

> On x86, the "user_struct" thing has nothing to do with any real kernel
> data structure, so it's extensible.  Can you just add syscallno to it?

I'm really not keen on changing user-facing structures like that. For
example, KVM embeds user_pt_regs into kvm_regs.

We can add a new ptrace request if we have to.

Will