From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FBA62F7AD5; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 09:16:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763975811; cv=none; b=D+YBm8jgzSz2m57zXKDUD6S5qhnXm4+yuo2wlcIxWPnnaUpDB+buFqMQq0q8xd4eW7XMU/c9xeyaSUu0WjxAs5Qv5SudqsBIRJS4Zb13Q0GFMqnclI372+bkJ3inHkD25V5LgKMrb1prodSUG4ZHKVTtXbzJPaZPFJKP/XDWzP4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763975811; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+qXvFwgXudpqeHM7Uv9G9N0Kdbu6FoLvn0qsUO9wXv0=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=V/Dmb9Ur6hreUCYov2tUo+mP4fKoAC2p3i49zR3I7otfihgupvkAG5LKxalz75Hbo9mrKdIGf0fA4z+JxhN6WXYf+zc4RnCHa1KboLu+vkzbKfHbxasZFq5IbVL8SixEIz5Iyw8F4HcDrqRj23HWlJhDMuuIeZCtxyYnaubX9nU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6FFA339; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 01:16:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.40.193] (unknown [10.57.40.193]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1B043F73B; Mon, 24 Nov 2025 01:16:41 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 10:16:39 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] arm64/ptrace: Handle ptrace_report_syscall_entry() error To: Jinjie Ruan , 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, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ldv@strace.io, macro@orcam.me.uk, deller@gmx.de, mark.rutland@arm.com, 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, lihongbo22@huawei.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org References: <20251117133048.53182-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20251117133048.53182-6-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> From: Kevin Brodsky Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 21/11/2025 05:15, Jinjie Ruan wrote: > > On 2025/11/19 1:12, Kevin Brodsky wrote: >> On 17/11/2025 14:30, Jinjie Ruan wrote: >>> The generic entry handle error of ptrace_report_syscall_entry(), but >>> arm64 not. >> This suggests that arm64 ignores the error completely, which isn't the >> case: no syscall will be performed, but tracing will still occur as normal. >> >> What this patch seems to be doing is to abort the _enter sequence if >> ptrace_report_syscall_entry() errors out. The commit title and message >> should be reworded accordingly. > You are right,the description is unclear . > >>> As the comment said, the calling arch code should abort the system >> Which comment? > ptrace_report_syscall_entry() I found that later, this should be clarified in the commit message. >>> call and must prevent normal entry so no system call is >>> made if ptrace_report_syscall_entry() return nonzero. >> This is already the case since we're calling forget_syscall(). > Yes. it is similar with the generic entry returns NO_SYSCALL. My point is that this patch is not changing this - arm64 was already skipping the syscall if ptrace_report_syscall_entry() returns an error. >>> In preparation for moving arm64 over to the generic entry code, >>> return early if ptrace_report_syscall_entry() encounters an error. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jinjie Ruan >>> --- >>> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 16 +++++++++++----- >>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> index 95984bbf53db..707951ad5d24 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c >>> @@ -2317,10 +2317,10 @@ enum ptrace_syscall_dir { >>> PTRACE_SYSCALL_EXIT, >>> }; >>> >>> -static void report_syscall_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >>> +static int report_syscall_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >>> { >>> - int regno; >>> unsigned long saved_reg; >>> + int regno, ret; >>> >>> /* >>> * We have some ABI weirdness here in the way that we handle syscall >>> @@ -2342,9 +2342,13 @@ static void report_syscall_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) >>> saved_reg = regs->regs[regno]; >>> regs->regs[regno] = PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER; >>> >>> - if (ptrace_report_syscall_entry(regs)) >>> + ret = ptrace_report_syscall_entry(regs); >>> + if (ret) >>> forget_syscall(regs); >> The generic syscall_trace_enter() doesn't do this (i.e. setting >> regs->syscallno to NO_SYSCALL). Is that an oversight or do we just not >> need it? In principle this does have a visible effect (e.g. via >> REGSET_SYSTEM_CALL). > We just not need it because the original syscall_trace_enter() need use > regs->syscallno as the return value, but now we return early by using > NO_SYSCALL. Calling forget_syscall() means setting regs->syscallno to NO_SYSCALL. It is indeed no longer required for the entry sequence, but it does have visible side effects. For instance, regs->syscallno can be inspected via ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET, REGSET_SYSTEM_CALL). So the question is whether we need to deviate from the generic path on arm64 (this is mostly a question for arm64 maintainers). - Kevin