From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, Keno Fischer <keno@juliacomputing.com>,
kernel-team@android.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64: ptrace: Use NO_SYSCALL instead of -1 in syscall_trace_enter()
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:11:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200710161148.GC31036@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202007100902.425E50F4D1@keescook>
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 09:04:08AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 02:07:01PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Setting a system call number of -1 is special, as it indicates that the
> > current system call should be skipped.
> >
> > Use NO_SYSCALL instead of -1 when checking for this scenario, which is
> > different from the -1 returned due to a seccomp failure.
>
> I can't understand this paragraph. NO_SYSCALL is -1, so how is this
> "different"?
>
> arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h:#define NO_SYSCALL (-1)
>
> Do you just mean "stop using a literal '-1'"?
Yes, I'm trying to distinguish '-1' when used as a system call number
from '-1' when used as the return value of secure_computing() on failure.
It's currently all mixed up, and I think it's confusing trying to realise
what is a system call number and what is an error code.
Will
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-10 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-10 13:06 [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: Fix single-step handling and syscall tracing Will Deacon
2020-07-10 13:06 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: ptrace: Consistently use pseudo-singlestep exceptions Will Deacon
2020-07-16 0:27 ` Sasha Levin
2020-07-10 13:06 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] arm64: ptrace: Override SPSR.SS when single-stepping is enabled Will Deacon
2020-07-16 0:27 ` Sasha Levin
2020-07-10 13:06 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64: compat: Ensure upper 32 bits of x0 are zero on syscall return Will Deacon
2020-07-16 0:27 ` Sasha Levin
2020-07-10 13:06 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] arm64: ptrace: Add a comment describing our syscall entry/exit trap ABI Will Deacon
2020-07-10 13:07 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] arm64: syscall: Expand the comment about ptrace and syscall(-1) Will Deacon
2020-07-10 13:07 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64: ptrace: Use NO_SYSCALL instead of -1 in syscall_trace_enter() Will Deacon
2020-07-10 16:04 ` Kees Cook
2020-07-10 16:11 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-07-13 2:32 ` Kees Cook
2020-07-10 13:07 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] arm64: Use test_tsk_thread_flag() for checking TIF_SINGLESTEP Will Deacon
2020-07-14 11:57 ` [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: Fix single-step handling and syscall tracing Luis Machado
2020-07-15 12:25 ` Luis Machado
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200710161148.GC31036@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=keno@juliacomputing.com \
--cc=kernel-team@android.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=luis.machado@linaro.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox