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 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 smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F20FC02181 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2025 00:25:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YfwSf2DMvz2ykX; Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:25:38 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=194.107.17.57 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1737764738; cv=none; b=hKRvWNdcaMiejXpPc9rE7RLqJQSOpxOFyd1HNvidKcA1uPQ4rDpLteGKjJM/w4mO52DvH+GLwEaDyYPEDxusecyrrPgEbycbfEVdeR2TAAf4G8LXRxK7MlJY9rrVRZCSDLMXAq1aCcArxVwCbXCUpBazW+39FFitmAwz97x9OvfBSN9MFVJuNQq+KDMdLmiGpyCfPsY3uacju1/fO+3L1Aa50mLmAGLpo7dsh3F+fLDosJWUmhxBVV4AVmTDh8AvBfF4OA5kpxPWhAXANd/i4IDhSxH9IEqgAdFjFUY0Q9raenoHehZzjaNRoq3Mw7hjK+i2u/rexbvQnt2raO4VEw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1737764738; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=J7sDKQLNok/cYmK+RDWLGEZrgZ8LgZDDQHi/q04vLDg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BcwroKjwQbBkpFW+emLujC59TBrbIyjCjv57nx6+fUh/NFKvPX7Ujz5/r0WYA+y1eajt1FiF9PHGSw03R5zS09U67K79blQ/kv/mv3Syy693Ef56w4j84yayD4jjPQQxFhpVDZ78Z99y9Lya5SQZDFQq9hmibNIgQGMDfgTxkUwKgGlUUyjXNi60FLtgIXWxtRSz+rHXQPrWtcpH3R0IOU8xvyGFhSQ1NHLRVVoCoR3xo3byFJ3CvKtEyos6Z5FSxpbp/XzlGmFgO94l+bZNE8GpxzqlEG7QgamLrTn1rUGNRqJ1Q2WMogFKCYjU+g5rWWOqsDxgpxs5uiNsjhkVDQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strace.io; spf=pass (client-ip=194.107.17.57; helo=vmicros1.altlinux.org; envelope-from=ldv@altlinux.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strace.io Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org (client-ip=194.107.17.57; helo=vmicros1.altlinux.org; envelope-from=ldv@altlinux.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from vmicros1.altlinux.org (vmicros1.altlinux.org [194.107.17.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YfwSd1Nswz2y8p for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2025 11:25:35 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from mua.local.altlinux.org (mua.local.altlinux.org [192.168.1.14]) by vmicros1.altlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CB5F72C8CC; Sat, 25 Jan 2025 03:25:32 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mua.local.altlinux.org (Postfix, from userid 508) id 2A71D7CCB3A; Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:25:32 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2025 02:25:32 +0200 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: Alexey Gladkov Cc: Christophe Leroy , Oleg Nesterov , Michael Ellerman , Eugene Syromyatnikov , Mike Frysinger , Renzo Davoli , Davide Berardi , strace-devel@lists.strace.io, Madhavan Srinivasan , Nicholas Piggin , Naveen N Rao , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value() Message-ID: <20250125002531.GA2765@strace.io> References: <20250113171054.GA589@strace.io> <6558110c-c2cb-4aa3-9472-b3496f71ebb8@csgroup.eu> <20250114170400.GB11820@strace.io> <20250123182815.GA20994@strace.io> <20250123234321.GA23582@strace.io> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 04:18:10PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 01:43:22AM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 08:28:15PM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 02:51:38PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > Le 14/01/2025 à 18:04, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit : > > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > > >> Le 13/01/2025 à 18:10, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit : > > > > >>> Bring syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error(), > > > > >>> and let upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> This reverts commit 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in > > > > >>> syscall_set_return_value()"). > > > > >> > > > > >> There is a clear detailed explanation in that commit of why it needs to > > > > >> be done. > > > > >> > > > > >> If you think that commit is wrong you have to explain why with at least > > > > >> the same level of details. > > > > > > > > > > OK, please have a look whether this explanation is clear and detailed enough: > > > > > > > > > > ======= > > > > > powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value() > > > > > > > > > > When syscall_set_return_value() is used to set an error code, the caller > > > > > specifies it as a negative value in -ERRORCODE form. > > > > > > > > > > In !trap_is_scv case the error code is traditionally stored as follows: > > > > > gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE, and ccr has 0x10000000 flag set. > > > > > Here are a few examples to illustrate this convention. The first one > > > > > is from syscall_get_error(): > > > > > /* > > > > > * If the system call failed, > > > > > * regs->gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE. > > > > > */ > > > > > return (regs->ccr & 0x10000000UL) ? -regs->gpr[3] : 0; > > > > > > > > > > The second example is from regs_return_value(): > > > > > if (is_syscall_success(regs)) > > > > > return regs->gpr[3]; > > > > > else > > > > > return -regs->gpr[3]; > > > > > > > > > > The third example is from check_syscall_restart(): > > > > > regs->result = -EINTR; > > > > > regs->gpr[3] = EINTR; > > > > > regs->ccr |= 0x10000000; > > > > > > > > > > Compared with these examples, the failure of syscall_set_return_value() > > > > > to assign a positive ERRORCODE into regs->gpr[3] is clearly visible: > > > > > /* > > > > > * In the general case it's not obvious that we must deal with > > > > > * CCR here, as the syscall exit path will also do that for us. > > > > > * However there are some places, eg. the signal code, which > > > > > * check ccr to decide if the value in r3 is actually an error. > > > > > */ > > > > > if (error) { > > > > > regs->ccr |= 0x10000000L; > > > > > regs->gpr[3] = error; > > > > > } else { > > > > > regs->ccr &= ~0x10000000L; > > > > > regs->gpr[3] = val; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > This fix brings syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error() > > > > > and lets upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in syscall_set_return_value()"). > > > > > ======= > > > > > > > > I think there is still something going wrong. > > > > > > > > do_seccomp() sets regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; by default. > > > > > > > > Then it calls __secure_computing() which returns what __seccomp_filter() > > > > returns. > > > > > > > > In case of error, __seccomp_filter() calls syscall_set_return_value() > > > > with a negative value then returns -1 > > > > > > > > do_seccomp() is called by do_syscall_trace_enter() which returns -1 when > > > > do_seccomp() doesn't return 0. > > > > > > > > do_syscall_trace_enter() is called by system_call_exception() and > > > > returns -1, so syscall_exception() returns regs->gpr[3] > > > > > > > > In entry_32.S, transfer_to_syscall, syscall_exit_prepare() is then > > > > called with the return of syscall_exception() as first parameter, which > > > > leads to: > > > > > > > > if (unlikely(r3 >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO) && is_not_scv) { > > > > if (likely(!(ti_flags & (_TIF_NOERROR | _TIF_RESTOREALL)))) { > > > > r3 = -r3; > > > > regs->ccr |= 0x10000000; /* Set SO bit in CR */ > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > By chance, because you have already changed the sign of gpr[3], the > > > > above test fails and nothing is done to r3, and because you have also > > > > already set regs->ccr it works. > > > > > > > > But all this looks inconsistent with the fact that do_seccomp sets > > > > -ENOSYS as default value > > > > > > > > Also, when do_seccomp() returns 0, do_syscall_trace_enter() check the > > > > syscall number and when it is wrong it goes to skip: which sets > > > > regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; > > > > > > > > So really I think it is not in line with your changes to set positive > > > > value in gpr[3]. > > > > > > > > Maybe your change is still correct but it needs to be handled completely > > > > in that case. > > > > > > Indeed, there is an inconsistency in !trap_is_scv case. > > > > > > In some places such as syscall_get_error() and regs_return_value() the > > > semantics is as I described earlier: gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE > > > and ccr has 0x10000000 flag set. This semantics is a part of the ABI and > > > therefore cannot be changed. > > > > > > In some other places like do_seccomp() and do_syscall_trace_enter() the > > > semantics is similar to the trap_is_scv case: gpr[3] contains a negative > > > ERRORCODE and ccr is unchanged. In addition, system_call_exception() > > > returns the system call function return value when it is executed, and > > > gpr[3] otherwise. The value returned by system_call_exception() is passed > > > on to syscall_exit_prepare() which performs the conversion you mentioned. > > > > > > What's remarkable is that in those places that are a part of the ABI the > > > traditional semantics is kept, while in other places the implementation > > > follows the trap_is_scv-like semantics, while traditional semantics is > > > also supported there. > > > > > > The only case where I see some intersection is do_seccomp() where the > > > tracer would be able to see -ENOSYS in gpr[3]. However, the seccomp stop > > > is not the place where the tracer *reads* the system call exit status, > > > so whatever was written in gpr[3] before __secure_computing() is not > > > really relevant, consequently, selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf passes with > > > this patch applied as well as without it. > > > > > > After looking at system_call_exception() I doubt this inconsistency can be > > > easily avoided, so I don't see how this patch could be enhanced further, > > > and what else could I do with the patch besides dropping it and letting > > > !trap_is_scv case be unsupported by PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO API, which > > > would be unfortunate. > > > > If you say this would bring some consistency, I can extend the patch with > > something like this: > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c > > index 727ed4a14545..dda276a934fd 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace/ptrace.c > > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static int do_seccomp(struct pt_regs *regs) > > * syscall parameter. This is different to the ptrace ABI where > > * both r3 and orig_gpr3 contain the first syscall parameter. > > */ > > - regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; > > + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -ENOSYS, 0); > > > > /* > > * We use the __ version here because we have already checked > > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static int do_seccomp(struct pt_regs *regs) > > * modify the first syscall parameter (in orig_gpr3) and also > > * allow the syscall to proceed. > > */ > > - regs->gpr[3] = regs->orig_gpr3; > > + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, 0, regs->orig_gpr3); > > > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -315,7 +315,7 @@ long do_syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs) > > * If we are aborting explicitly, or if the syscall number is > > * now invalid, set the return value to -ENOSYS. > > */ > > - regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; > > + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -ENOSYS, 0); > > return -1; > > } > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c > > index aa17e62f3754..c921e0cb54b8 100644 > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/signal.c > > @@ -229,14 +229,8 @@ static void check_syscall_restart(struct pt_regs *regs, struct k_sigaction *ka, > > regs_add_return_ip(regs, -4); > > regs->result = 0; > > } else { > > - if (trap_is_scv(regs)) { > > - regs->result = -EINTR; > > - regs->gpr[3] = -EINTR; > > - } else { > > - regs->result = -EINTR; > > - regs->gpr[3] = EINTR; > > - regs->ccr |= 0x10000000; > > - } > > + regs->result = -EINTR; > > + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs, -EINTR, 0); > > } > > } > > I'm not a powerpc expert but shouldn't be used regs->gpr[3] via a > regs_return_value() in system_call_exception() ? This would ensure that system_call_exception() returns errors in -ERRORCODE form, which wouldn't have any practical difference given that the return code is passed on to syscall_exit_prepare() which performs the conversion. However, this could bring more consistency when applied along with other consistency-related changes. I wish the people responsible for powerpc would be more specific about the level of consistency they are ready to maintain. -- ldv