From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13983B6FD5 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 04:54:03 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2] Audit: push audit success and retcode into arch ptrace.h From: Eric Paris To: Oleg Nesterov Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2011 14:53:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20110607171952.GA25729@redhat.com> References: <20110603220451.23134.47368.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <20110607171952.GA25729@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <1307472796.2052.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, paulus@samba.org, hpa@zytor.com, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, richard@nod.at, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, jdike@addtoit.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, tglx@linutronix.de, monstr@monstr.eu, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, linux390@de.ibm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, davem@davemloft.net List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2011-06-07 at 19:19 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 06/03, Eric Paris wrote: > > > > The audit system previously expected arches calling to audit_syscall_exit to > > supply as arguments if the syscall was a success and what the return code was. > > Audit also provides a helper AUDITSC_RESULT which was supposed to simplify things > > by converting from negative retcodes to an audit internal magic value stating > > success or failure. This helper was wrong and could indicate that a valid > > pointer returned to userspace was a failed syscall. The fix is to fix the > > layering foolishness. We now pass audit_syscall_exit a struct pt_reg and it > > in turns calls back into arch code to collect the return value and to > > determine if the syscall was a success or failure. We also define a generic > > is_syscall_success() macro which determines success/failure based on if the > > value is < -MAX_ERRNO. This works for arches like x86 which do not use a > > separate mechanism to indicate syscall failure. > > I know nothing about audit, but the patch looks fine to me. > > > But I have a bit off-topic question, > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > index 8a445a0..b7b1f88 100644 > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S > > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ > > #include > > #include > > #include > > +#include > > > > /* Avoid __ASSEMBLER__'ifying just for this. */ > > #include > > @@ -564,17 +565,16 @@ auditsys: > > jmp system_call_fastpath > > > > /* > > - * Return fast path for syscall audit. Call audit_syscall_exit() > > + * Return fast path for syscall audit. Call __audit_syscall_exit() > > * directly and then jump back to the fast path with TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT > > * masked off. > > */ > > sysret_audit: > > movq RAX-ARGOFFSET(%rsp),%rsi /* second arg, syscall return value */ > > - cmpq $0,%rsi /* is it < 0? */ > > - setl %al /* 1 if so, 0 if not */ > > + cmpq $-MAX_ERRNO,%rsi /* is it < -MAX_ERRNO? */ > > + setbe %al /* 1 if so, 0 if not */ > > movzbl %al,%edi /* zero-extend that into %edi */ > > - inc %edi /* first arg, 0->1(AUDITSC_SUCCESS), 1->2(AUDITSC_FAILURE) */ > > - call audit_syscall_exit > > + call __audit_syscall_exit > > With or without this patch, can't we call audit_syscall_exit() twice > if there is something else in _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_EXIT mask apart from > SYSCALL_AUDIT ? First time it is called from asm, then from > syscall_trace_leave(), no? > > For example. The task has TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT and nothing else, it does > system_call->auditsys->system_call_fastpath. What if it gets, say, > TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE before ret_from_sys_call? No harm is done calling twice. The first call will do the real work and cleanup. It will set a flag in the audit data that the work has been done (in_syscall == 0) thus the second call will then not do any real work and won't have anything to clean up. -Eric