Linux Kernel Selftest development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jinjie Ruan <ruanjinjie@huawei.com>
To: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>, <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	<will@kernel.org>, <oleg@redhat.com>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	<peterz@infradead.org>, <luto@kernel.org>, <shuah@kernel.org>,
	<kees@kernel.org>, <wad@chromium.org>, <charlie@rivosinc.com>,
	<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <ldv@strace.io>, <macro@orcam.me.uk>,
	<deller@gmx.de>, <mark.rutland@arm.com>, <efault@gmx.de>,
	<song@kernel.org>, <mbenes@suse.cz>, <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
	<ada.coupriediaz@arm.com>, <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	<broonie@kernel.org>, <pengcan@kylinos.cn>, <dvyukov@google.com>,
	<kmal@cock.li>, <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/12] arm64: entry: Convert to generic entry
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2025 09:23:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0e65df65-c454-df7f-0685-42e9c0f0f9e3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8c55c2a1-995e-44a1-8d48-b7d794f5176f@arm.com>



On 2025/11/28 21:32, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 28/11/2025 04:34, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>
>> On 2025/11/27 21:31, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2025 08:14, Jinjie Ruan wrote:
>>>> Currently, x86, Riscv, Loongarch use the generic entry which makes
>>>> maintainers' work easier and codes more elegant. arm64 has already
>>>> switched to the generic IRQ entry, so completely convert arm64 to use
>>>> the generic entry infrastructure from kernel/entry/*.
>>>>
>>>> The changes are below:
>>>>  - Remove TIF_SYSCALL_* flag, _TIF_WORK_MASK, _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK,
>>> _TIF_WORK_MASK is now removed in patch 1.
>>>
>>>>    and remove has_syscall_work(), as _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK is equal with
>>>>    SYSCALL_WORK_ENTER.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> +static __always_inline void arch_ptrace_report_syscall_exit(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>>> +							    int step)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	unsigned long saved_reg;
>>>> +	int regno;
>>>> +
>>>> +	saved_reg = ptrace_save_reg(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT, &regno);
>>>> +	if (!step) {
>>> A difference I noticed here is that the generic report_single_step()
>>> always returns false if SYSCALL_EMU is set. I don't know if the
>>> combination of SYSCALL_EMU and SINGLESTEP is meaningful, but if it is
>>> then I think that's a behaviour change.
>> commit 64eb35f701f0 ("ptrace: Migrate TIF_SYSCALL_EMU to use
>> SYSCALL_WORK flag") has changed the following code:
>>
>> Therefore, the original logic returns false in these cases for
>> report_single_step() :
>>
>> - Only _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU is set.
>>
>> - Both _TIF_SINGLESTEP and _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU are set.
>>
>> - Neither TIF_SINGLESTEP nor _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU is set;
>>
>>
>>     #define SYSEMU_STEP    (_TIF_SINGLESTEP | _TIF_SYSCALL_EMU)
>>
>>     static inline bool report_single_step(unsigned long ti_work)
>>     {
>>        return (ti_work & SYSEMU_STEP) == _TIF_SINGLESTEP;
>>     }
> 
> The code did look different before this commit, but AFAICT it was
> functionally equivalent w.r.t. SYSEMU / SINGLESTEP.
> 
>> I think the "returns false if SYSCALL_EMU is set" behaviour is correct
>> according to the Man's Manual, both PTRACE_SYSEMU and
>> PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP need to report the syscal only once on syscall
>> entry.
>>
>>     “For PTRACE_SYSEMU, continue and stop on entry to the next
>>       system call, which will not be executed.  See the
>>       documentation on syscall-stops below.  For
>>       PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP, do the same but also singlestep
>>       if not a system call. “
> 
> That seems sensible (based on my very limited understanding of SYSEMU),
> nevertheless it is not what arm64 currently does AFAIU. To follow the



> same logic as the rest, this change should be made in a separate patch.

Right, and the man page description seems to match the comments of the
report_single_step() function.

"74 /*
 75  * If SYSCALL_EMU is set, then the only reason to report is when
 76  * SINGLESTEP is set (i.e. PTRACE_SYSEMU_SINGLESTEP).  This syscall
 77  * instruction has been already reported in
syscall_enter_from_user_mode().
 78  */
"

> 
>> Link:https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/ptrace.2.html
>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>  #define TIF_UPROBE		5	/* uprobe breakpoint or singlestep */
>>>>  #define TIF_MTE_ASYNC_FAULT	6	/* MTE Asynchronous Tag Check Fault */
>>>>  #define TIF_NOTIFY_SIGNAL	7	/* signal notifications exist */
>>>> -#define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE	8	/* syscall trace active */
>>>> -#define TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT	9	/* syscall auditing */
>>>> -#define TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT	10	/* syscall tracepoint for ftrace */
>>>> -#define TIF_SECCOMP		11	/* syscall secure computing */
>>>> -#define TIF_SYSCALL_EMU		12	/* syscall emulation active */
>>>> +#define TIF_SECCOMP		11      /* syscall secure computing */
>>>> +#define TIF_SYSCALL_EMU		12      /* syscall emulation active */
>>> These seem to have reappeared in v8 for some reason?
>> v8 add "ARCH_SYSCALL_WORK_EXIT" to be defined as "SECCOMP | SYSCALL_EMU"
>>   to keep the arm64 behaviour unchanged as mentioned in v7.
> 
> Ah then that is where the issue is, I missed that: surely switching to
> generic entry means that we are using SYSCALL_WORK_BIT_* rather than
> TIF_* for all these flags?

I think they may be the same thing as you mentioned in v7,neither
SYSCALL_WORK_EXIT nor report_single_step() excluded SYSCALL_EMU, maybe
we should clarify them for arm64 together in a separate patch.

1、"The generic report_single_step() always returns false if SYSCALL_EMU
is set."

2、"
     > -void syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare(struct pt_regs *regs)
     > -{
     > -	unsigned long flags = read_thread_flags();
     > -
     > -	rseq_syscall(regs);
     > -
     > -	if (has_syscall_work(flags) || flags & _TIF_SINGLESTEP)

     I believe switching to the generic function introduces a change
     here: syscall_exit_work() is only called if a flag in
SYSCALL_WORK_EXIT is set, and this set does not include SYSCALL_EMU and
    SECCOMP. Practically this means that audit_syscall_exit() will no
    longer be called if only SECCOMP and/or SYSCALL_EMU is set.

   It doesn't feel like a major behaviour change, but it should be
   pointed out."

> 
> - Kevin
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-29  1:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-26  7:14 [PATCH v8 00/12] arm64: entry: Convert to Generic Entry Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 01/12] arm64: Remove unused _TIF_WORK_MASK Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:27   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 02/12] arm64/ptrace: Split report_syscall() Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:28   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 03/12] arm64/ptrace: Refactor syscall_trace_enter/exit() Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:28   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 04/12] arm64: ptrace: Move rseq_syscall() before audit_syscall_exit() Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:28   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 05/12] arm64: syscall: Rework el0_svc_common() Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:29   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 06/12] arm64/ptrace: Return early for ptrace_report_syscall_entry() error Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:29   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 07/12] arm64/ptrace: Expand secure_computing() in place Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:29   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 08/12] arm64/ptrace: Use syscall_get_arguments() heleper Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:30   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 09/12] entry: Split syscall_exit_to_user_mode_work() for arch reuse Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 10/12] entry: Add arch_ptrace_report_syscall_entry/exit() Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:30   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 11/12] arm64: entry: Convert to generic entry Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-27 13:31   ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-28  3:34     ` Jinjie Ruan
2025-11-28 13:32       ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-29  1:23         ` Jinjie Ruan [this message]
2025-12-01 10:17           ` Kevin Brodsky
2025-11-26  7:14 ` [PATCH v8 12/12] selftests: sud_test: Support aarch64 Jinjie Ruan

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=0e65df65-c454-df7f-0685-42e9c0f0f9e3@huawei.com \
    --to=ruanjinjie@huawei.com \
    --cc=ada.coupriediaz@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=charlie@rivosinc.com \
    --cc=deller@gmx.de \
    --cc=dvyukov@google.com \
    --cc=efault@gmx.de \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
    --cc=kmal@cock.li \
    --cc=ldv@strace.io \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=macro@orcam.me.uk \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mbenes@suse.cz \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=pengcan@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    --cc=song@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /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