From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: ptrace_syscall_32 is failing
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 12:13:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mu254zpg.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrUuyXpG0Vhrb-9m-G8J94+2bGqdrJkKfz+-5z7dsGLK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Andy,
On Wed, Sep 02 2020 at 09:49, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 1:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>
>> But you might tell me where exactly you want to inject the SIGTRAP in
>> the syscall exit code flow.
>
> It would be a bit complicated. Definitely after any signals from the
> syscall are delivered. Right now, I think that we don't deliver a
> SIGTRAP on the instruction boundary after SYSCALL while
> single-stepping. (I think we used to, but only sometimes, and now we
> are at least consistent.) This is because IRET will not trap if it
> starts with TF clear and ends up setting it. (I asked Intel to
> document this, and I think they finally did, although I haven't gotten
> around to reading the new docs. Certainly the old docs as of a year
> or two ago had no description whatsoever of how TF changes worked.)
>
> Deciding exactly *when* a trap should occur would be nontrivial -- we
> can't trap on sigreturn() from a SIGTRAP, for example.
>
> So this isn't fully worked out.
Oh well.
>> >> I don't think we want that in general. The current variant is perfectly
>> >> fine for everything except the 32bit fast syscall nonsense. Also
>> >> irqentry_entry/exit is not equivalent to the syscall_enter/exit
>> >> counterparts.
>> >
>> > If there are any architectures in which actual work is needed to
>> > figure out whether something is a syscall in the first place, they'll
>> > want to do the usual kernel entry work before the syscall entry work.
>>
>> That's low level entry code which does not require RCU, lockdep, tracing
>> or whatever muck we setup before actual work can be done.
>>
>> arch_asm_entry()
>> ...
>> arch_c_entry(cause) {
>> switch(cause) {
>> case EXCEPTION: arch_c_exception(...);
>> case SYSCALL: arch_c_syscall(...);
>> ...
>> }
>
> You're assuming that figuring out the cause doesn't need the kernel
> entry code to run first. In the case of the 32-bit vDSO fast
> syscalls, we arguably don't know whether an entry is a syscall until
> we have done a user memory access. Logically, we're doing:
>
> if (get_user() < 0) {
> /* Not a syscall. This is actually a silly operation that sets AX =
> -EFAULT and returns. Do not audit or invoke ptrace. */
> } else {
> /* This actually is a syscall. */
> }
Yes, that's what I've addressed with providing split interfaces.
>> You really want to differentiate between exception and syscall
>> entry/exit.
>>
>
> Why do we want to distinguish between exception and syscall
> entry/exit? For the enter part, AFAICS the exception case boils down
> to enter_from_user_mode() and the syscall case is:
>
> enter_from_user_mode(regs);
> instrumentation_begin();
>
> local_irq_enable();
> ti_work = READ_ONCE(current_thread_info()->flags);
> if (ti_work & SYSCALL_ENTER_WORK)
> syscall = syscall_trace_enter(regs, syscall, ti_work);
> instrumentation_end();
>
> Which would decompose quite nicely as a regular (non-syscall) entry
> plus the syscall part later.
There is a difference between syscall entry and exception entry at least
in my view:
syscall:
enter_from_user_mode(regs);
local_irq_enable();
exception:
enter_from_user_mode(regs);
>> we'd have:
>>
>> arch_c_entry()
>> irqentry_enter();
>> local_irq_enble();
>> nr = syscall_enter_from_user_mode_work();
>> ...
>>
>> which enforces two calls for sane entries and more code in arch/....
>
> This is why I still like my:
>
> arch_c_entry()
> irqentry_enter_from_user_mode();
> generic_syscall();
> exit...
So what we have now (with my patch applied) is either:
1) arch_c_entry()
nr = syscall_enter_from_user_mode();
arch_handle_syscall(nr);
syscall_exit_to_user_mode();
or for that extra 32bit fast syscall thing:
2) arch_c_entry()
syscall_enter_from_user_mode_prepare();
arch_do_stuff();
nr = syscall_enter_from_user_mode_work();
arch_handle_syscall(nr);
syscall_exit_to_user_mode();
So for sane cases you just use #1.
Ideally we'd not need arch_handle_syscall(nr) at all, but that does not
work with multiple ABIs supported, i.e. the compat muck.
The only way we could make that work is to have:
syscall_enter_exit(regs, mode)
nr = syscall_enter_from_user_mode();
arch_handle_syscall(mode, nr);
syscall_exit_to_user_mode();
and then arch_c_entry() becomes:
syscall_enter_exit(regs, mode);
which means that arch_handle_syscall() would have to evaluate the mode
and chose the appropriate syscall table. Not sure whether that's a win.
Thanks,
tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-09-04 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-29 16:48 ptrace_syscall_32 is failing Andy Lutomirski
2020-08-30 4:40 ` Brian Gerst
2020-08-30 15:52 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-01 23:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-02 0:09 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-02 8:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-09-02 16:49 ` Andy Lutomirski
2020-09-04 10:13 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
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=87mu254zpg.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=brgerst@gmail.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=x86@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