From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 732B4C433ED for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 22:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 515C060200 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 22:52:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229955AbhESWxV (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 18:53:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:43094 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229734AbhESWxU (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 May 2021 18:53:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x630.google.com (mail-pl1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::630]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99A8FC061574 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pl1-x630.google.com with SMTP id s4so6340003plg.12 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:52:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K/gtSQyGUSDU2Jx3SxY9nAC3F0K9RnJVQwhiYzkSGHo=; b=Li4+10qZfuoAIzSIdJugbWgsSwoc1VZ1cdDPmdYg/YSbcOh/JRR+H6pZrgwFRDnUEo HGaEbrAhJe7+B5Glo+itY5TnswaO/K7rPHq1jJQgzhgX0leCQtJnPES6l9+tlC3YieE6 S/HQtpfeC3os3GwDdARMl27O8ubM/rlGmyZG+G3jzHM6KrPuGba3wdNYRwYki08XnMi0 A8UEKrOacg2Wrxx4Rejhv55B3yAwt1CynTgNc2c052ybYVpUHufFmowo4uNohnQBLZIF hFYytl+q3SuIuwV+yhuVmt2BTZz+wY1e/lgWlrCUXqSojnpw3nx66trf6xWhBWA2W1VE HbTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K/gtSQyGUSDU2Jx3SxY9nAC3F0K9RnJVQwhiYzkSGHo=; b=q5tXuzsxzQzOd+1ul+jdLVV7hOV6I9XtCocyXOsQxwPaAIM8+CydGnLZxtkJXSJWTX 60qKaD+/B7QVjbnq4jQxYtIPyOJllzeDRVR7Qf/RYtxrgUHSWcUQjeTLiYcPSRUC0Sa7 0jb1GT3gQY/mkZ4yZ1GmhO1+IeRtcjH3h105XIkqMSAWEUTON737EnsRu2xm2y/PGcBQ 93qlY3NQqYhqID4MxfU9X2mm0nBxsxS96otF8HVKArK1m3feCdjhfS68pH/me6YaJ1x6 v4G13roT9gxjV1pb1kXbLq1MNxSgBCQcbVtLvEfHLXC2nGyVPqHWmEHmhDEftP3mGnjg 7OBA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531U2a9zMw2sNndlOh2eGDUVcCHo7dgazcRFEFMtdHZJsSiyTCvu U9cDqeP+qcIBgPfrG5Xej0U= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwHW0r8aMTiKvsh1z2gjgvHDbBcxnmnURC+BE3zkCPCR2+LFtab8vdgFm6O8pyoHn65LB4gQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a40e:b029:e9:7253:8198 with SMTP id p14-20020a170902a40eb02900e972538198mr2160441plq.82.1621464720134; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (60-241-27-127.tpgi.com.au. [60.241.27.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gg10sm364500pjb.49.2021.05.19.15.51.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 May 2021 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 08:51:53 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI To: "Dmitry V. Levin" , Michael Ellerman Cc: Joakim Tjernlund , libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-dev@lists.llvm.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Matheus Castanho , musl@lists.openwall.com References: <20210519132656.GA17204@altlinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20210519132656.GA17204@altlinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1621464056.o9t21cquw8.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 11:26 pm: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:59:05PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 8:24 pm: >> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:50:24PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> > [...] >> >> With this patch, I think the ptrace ABI should mostly be fixed. I thi= nk=20 >> >> a problem remains with applications that look at system call return=20 >> >> registers directly and have powerpc specific error cases. Those proba= bly >> >> will just need to be updated unfortunately. Michael thought it might = be >> >> possible to return an indication via ptrace somehow that the syscall = is >> >> using a new ABI, so such apps can be updated to test for it. I don't=20 >> >> know how that would be done. >> >=20 >> > Is there any sane way for these applications to handle the scv case? >> > How can they tell that the scv semantics is being used for the given >> > syscall invocation? Can this information be obtained e.g. from struct >> > pt_regs? >>=20 >> Not that I know of. Michael suggested there might be a way to add=20 >> something. ptrace_syscall_info has some pad bytes, could >> we use one for flags bits and set a bit for "new system call ABI"? >=20 > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is an architecture-agnostic API, it hides all > architecture-specific details behind struct ptrace_syscall_info which has > the same meaning on all architectures. ptrace_syscall_info.exit contains > both rval and is_error fields to support every architecture regardless of > its syscall ABI. >=20 > ptrace_syscall_info.exit is extensible, but every architecture would have > to define a method of telling whether the system call follows the "new > system call ABI" conventions to export this bit of information. It's already architecture speicfic if you look at registers of syscall=20 exit state so I don't see a problem with a flag that ppc can use for ABI. >=20 > This essentially means implementing something like > static inline long syscall_get_error_abi(struct task_struct *task, struct= pt_regs *regs) > for every architecture, and using it along with syscall_get_error > in ptrace_get_syscall_info_exit to initialize the new field in > ptrace_syscall_info.exit structure. Yes this could work. Other architectures can just use a generic implementation if they don't define their own so that's easy. And in userspace they can continue to ignore the flag. >=20 >> As a more hacky thing you could make a syscall with -1 and see how >> the error looks, and then assume all syscalls will be the same. >=20 > This would be very unreliable because sc and scv are allowed to interming= le, > so every syscall invocation can follow any of these two error handling > conventions. >=20 >> Or... is it possible at syscall entry to peek the address of >> the instruction which caused the call and see if that was a >> scv instruction? That would be about as reliable as possible >> without having that new flag bit. >=20 > No other architecture requires peeking into tracee memory just to find ou= t > the syscall ABI. This would make powerpc the most ugly architecture for > ptracing. >=20 > I wonder why can't this information be just exported to the tracer via > struct pt_regs? It might be able to, I don't see why that would be superior though. Where could you put it... I guess it could go in the trap field in a=20 high bit. But could that break things that just test for syscall=20 trap number (and don't care about register ABI)? I'm not sure. Thanks, Nick