From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FACC433B4 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 22:52:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFD3060FF2 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 22:52:31 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org BFD3060FF2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Flp6Q11RFz3brx for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:52:30 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=Li4+10qZ; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com (client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030; helo=mail-pj1-x1030.google.com; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20161025 header.b=Li4+10qZ; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Flp5v5crzz2yWv for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 08:52:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id pi6-20020a17090b1e46b029015cec51d7cdso4211890pjb.5 for ; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:52:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K/gtSQyGUSDU2Jx3SxY9nAC3F0K9RnJVQwhiYzkSGHo=; b=Li4+10qZfuoAIzSIdJugbWgsSwoc1VZ1cdDPmdYg/YSbcOh/JRR+H6pZrgwFRDnUEo HGaEbrAhJe7+B5Glo+itY5TnswaO/K7rPHq1jJQgzhgX0leCQtJnPES6l9+tlC3YieE6 S/HQtpfeC3os3GwDdARMl27O8ubM/rlGmyZG+G3jzHM6KrPuGba3wdNYRwYki08XnMi0 A8UEKrOacg2Wrxx4Rejhv55B3yAwt1CynTgNc2c052ybYVpUHufFmowo4uNohnQBLZIF hFYytl+q3SuIuwV+yhuVmt2BTZz+wY1e/lgWlrCUXqSojnpw3nx66trf6xWhBWA2W1VE HbTA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:subject:to:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:message-id:content-transfer-encoding; bh=K/gtSQyGUSDU2Jx3SxY9nAC3F0K9RnJVQwhiYzkSGHo=; b=KW3i2eRNvxQMA+5reSPvyidq47NDR2acowQKtGwfmqJ4PiVKrDSJkeyf+rlCEUxHIc CntX3/CZ674EawQgKafr/rgYVyFr7xsVEQ055bH/uKb8I4s44TgM0HbEIuriZ3mSYgVs AncoQ2kr2OYve5zrzT/94qixGkxux5t08Rmty6yeHDa1inm6n9bNlcZt5Nc2SslvkwJ2 RHNuYot867Db3+mgxf3uBsrE0ZfU4yDvpQnkf+8VYrfg8fk6Jqxh8PZWCtLghY79s50+ cM6PQHIeN7Ob7YsnQ9IzwSE1ElH2EapJ7kASZ7Mqrwh70QVbpMjIA+rtPWpmzO26qMqv otgg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533WABcUavoynLLzcQV+2v5R8fkBJVJAOkL2Ok5KSQCyhdbrh3z2 VtOwUibzUbXtjcpyP68Nbv8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwwHW0r8aMTiKvsh1z2gjgvHDbBcxnmnURC+BE3zkCPCR2+LFtab8vdgFm6O8pyoHn65LB4gQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a40e:b029:e9:7253:8198 with SMTP id p14-20020a170902a40eb02900e972538198mr2160441plq.82.1621464720134; Wed, 19 May 2021 15:52:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (60-241-27-127.tpgi.com.au. [60.241.27.127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gg10sm364500pjb.49.2021.05.19.15.51.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 19 May 2021 15:51:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 08:51:53 +1000 From: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI To: "Dmitry V. Levin" , Michael Ellerman References: <20210519132656.GA17204@altlinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20210519132656.GA17204@altlinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <1621464056.o9t21cquw8.astroid@bobo.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, Matheus Castanho , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, musl@lists.openwall.com, libc-dev@lists.llvm.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 11:26 pm: > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:59:05PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 8:24 pm: >> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:50:24PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: >> > [...] >> >> With this patch, I think the ptrace ABI should mostly be fixed. I thi= nk=20 >> >> a problem remains with applications that look at system call return=20 >> >> registers directly and have powerpc specific error cases. Those proba= bly >> >> will just need to be updated unfortunately. Michael thought it might = be >> >> possible to return an indication via ptrace somehow that the syscall = is >> >> using a new ABI, so such apps can be updated to test for it. I don't=20 >> >> know how that would be done. >> >=20 >> > Is there any sane way for these applications to handle the scv case? >> > How can they tell that the scv semantics is being used for the given >> > syscall invocation? Can this information be obtained e.g. from struct >> > pt_regs? >>=20 >> Not that I know of. Michael suggested there might be a way to add=20 >> something. ptrace_syscall_info has some pad bytes, could >> we use one for flags bits and set a bit for "new system call ABI"? >=20 > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is an architecture-agnostic API, it hides all > architecture-specific details behind struct ptrace_syscall_info which has > the same meaning on all architectures. ptrace_syscall_info.exit contains > both rval and is_error fields to support every architecture regardless of > its syscall ABI. >=20 > ptrace_syscall_info.exit is extensible, but every architecture would have > to define a method of telling whether the system call follows the "new > system call ABI" conventions to export this bit of information. It's already architecture speicfic if you look at registers of syscall=20 exit state so I don't see a problem with a flag that ppc can use for ABI. >=20 > This essentially means implementing something like > static inline long syscall_get_error_abi(struct task_struct *task, struct= pt_regs *regs) > for every architecture, and using it along with syscall_get_error > in ptrace_get_syscall_info_exit to initialize the new field in > ptrace_syscall_info.exit structure. Yes this could work. Other architectures can just use a generic implementation if they don't define their own so that's easy. And in userspace they can continue to ignore the flag. >=20 >> As a more hacky thing you could make a syscall with -1 and see how >> the error looks, and then assume all syscalls will be the same. >=20 > This would be very unreliable because sc and scv are allowed to interming= le, > so every syscall invocation can follow any of these two error handling > conventions. >=20 >> Or... is it possible at syscall entry to peek the address of >> the instruction which caused the call and see if that was a >> scv instruction? That would be about as reliable as possible >> without having that new flag bit. >=20 > No other architecture requires peeking into tracee memory just to find ou= t > the syscall ABI. This would make powerpc the most ugly architecture for > ptracing. >=20 > I wonder why can't this information be just exported to the tracer via > struct pt_regs? It might be able to, I don't see why that would be superior though. Where could you put it... I guess it could go in the trap field in a=20 high bit. But could that break things that just test for syscall=20 trap number (and don't care about register ABI)? I'm not sure. Thanks, Nick