From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wcohen@redhat.com (William Cohen) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 14:43:14 -0400 Subject: Kernel oops on 32-bit arm with syscall with invalid sysno In-Reply-To: <20150529161030.GJ2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <55677D6A.1060008@redhat.com> <20150528214256.GF2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55688AB7.7000101@redhat.com> <20150529161030.GJ2067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <5568B342.1070708@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/29/2015 12:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:50:15AM -0400, William Cohen wrote: >> On 05/28/2015 05:42 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:41:14PM -0400, William Cohen wrote: >>>> When reviewing testsuite failures for systemtap I found that the >>>> 32-bit arm kernels (both 4.1.0-rc5 and 3.19.8) were not handling the >>>> libc syscall with invalid sysno in the manner described by >>>> http://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_node/System-Calls.html. >>>> Rather than returning -1 and setting errno to ENOSYS the invalid >>>> syscall gives segfault and a kernel oops. >>> >>> Looking at this, it seems that we're triggering this: >>> >>> BUG_ON(context->in_syscall || context->name_count); >>> >>> which seems to imply that we've called audit_syscall_entry() twice >>> without a call to audit_syscall_exit(). That is something we can >>> fix - and something which only happens with the syscall of "-1" >>> (which is our "syscall was cancelled" value.) >> >> Hi Russell, >> >> The patch below does eliminate the kernel oops for -1, but it breaks things for other invalid/unimplemented syscalls. For the attached test, invalid_syscall_plus.c: >> >> >> $ gcc -g -o invalid_syscall_plus invalid_syscall_plus.c >> $ ./invalid_syscall_plus >> Illegal instruction (core dumped) >> >> Previously this would print out the expected messages. > > The patch /doesn't/ change that behaviour at all. You are correct. I was looking at previous results on the wrong machine/architecture. Sorry. > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S >>> index f8ccc21fa032..2c40c1214a72 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S >>> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S >>> @@ -241,11 +241,11 @@ __sys_trace: >>> cmp scno, #-1 @ skip the syscall? > > If the system call number was not -1 (in your case it isn't, it's 0xdeadbeef) > >>> bne 2b > > Branch to the "2" label backwards, otherwise execute this code: > >>> add sp, sp, #S_OFF @ restore stack >>> - b ret_slow_syscall >>> + b 3f >>> >>> __sys_trace_return: >>> str r0, [sp, #S_R0 + S_OFF]! @ save returned r0 >>> - mov r0, sp >>> +3: mov r0, sp >>> bl syscall_trace_exit >>> b ret_slow_syscall > > The code at the referenced local "2" is: > > 2: cmp scno, #(__ARM_NR_BASE - __NR_SYSCALL_BASE) > eor r0, scno, #__NR_SYSCALL_BASE @ put OS number back > bcs arm_syscall > mov why, #0 @ no longer a real syscall > b sys_ni_syscall @ not private func > > __NR_SYSCALL_BASE will be zero for your kernel. > > What this says is that if the system call number is greater than > __ARM_NR_BASE, then branch to arm_syscall(), otherwise call > sys_ni_syscall(). > > sys_ni_syscall() will return the -1 / ENOSYS you're expecting. > > However, __ARM_NR_BASE is: > > #define __ARM_NR_BASE (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+0x0f0000) > > which, I fully described in my previous email. > > arm_syscall() intentionally gives a SIGILL for cases it doesn't handle. > > Your case you are now reporting is behaviour that it's always had going > back more than 15 years, and is most definitely a WONTFIX. Sorry. > 0xdeadbeef is a negative number, so arm_syscall will be called rather than sys_ni_syscall. What it looks like is that the systemtap testsuite should be using some large (but not too large) positive number such as 0xffff to get the desired unimplemented syscall -Will