Re: [PATCH v10 05/16] arm64: ptrace: Move rseq_syscall() before audit_syscall_exit()

[Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>]

On 28/01/2026 02:09, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>
> On 2026/1/27 23:06, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> On 27/01/2026 12:34, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>  I'm also concerned that rseq_debug_update_user_cs()
>>>>> operates on instruction_pointer(regs) which is something that can be
>>>>> chaned by ptrace.
>>>> Isn't that true regardless of where rseq_syscall() is called on the
>>>> syscall exit path, though?
>>> My understanding is that if instruction_pointer(regs) is hijacked and
>>> modified via ptrace at the syscall exit (ptrace_report_syscall_exit()),
>>> this modification will not be observed by rseq. Specifically, in the
>>> generic entry syscall exit path, rseq_syscall() is unable to detect such
>>> a PC modification.
>> Good point. So concretely that means that currently on arm64, one could
>> make the rseq debug check pass/fail by using the syscall exit trap to
>> modify PC. OTOH this is impossible with generic entry because the rseq
>> check is performed first. I'm not sure this is a feature anyone has even
>> noticed, but it is a user-visible change indeed.
> After digging into the ptrace code, I found that ptrace does not modify
> instruction_pointer(regs) on the syscall exit path; it only changes the
> return value as below.
> Therefore, if my understanding is correct, Will's concern does not apply
> here.
>
> ptrace_set_syscall_info()
>   -> ptrace_set_syscall_info_exit()
>      -> syscall_set_return_value(child, regs, 0, rval)

I'm not following, how is that related to the call to
ptrace_report_syscall_exit()? That eventually results in a call to
ptrace_stop() (via ptrace_notify()), which synchronously causes the
tracee to sleep and allows the tracer to issue ptrace commands, e.g.
setting PC.

- Kevin