Re: [PATCH] riscv: Remove unnecessary path for syscall_trace

[Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>]

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:29:45AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> Hi Tycho,
> 
> On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:36 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 02:18:26PM +0000, guoren@kernel.org wrote:
> > > From: Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
> > >
> > > Obviously, there is no need to recover a0-a7 in reject path.
> > >
> > > Previous modification is from commit af33d243 by Tycho, to
> > > fixup seccomp reject syscall code path.
> >
> > Doesn't this suffer from the same problem, though? a7 is clobbered, so
> > the -ERESTARTSYS behavior won't work?
> 
> Look, the patch only affects the path of ret_from_syscall_rejected,
> and there are two possible paths:
> 1. ret_from_syscall_rejected->handle_syscall_trace_exit->ret_from_exception
> 2. ret_from_syscall_rejected->ret_from_exception
> 
> All the above skip the check_syscall_nr and ignore the current a7, in
> the C function they use the pt_regs in the stack to get proper reg's
> value.
> 
> For the -ERESTARTSYS, we only process it in:
> ret_from_exception->resume_userspace->work_notifysig->do_notify_resume:
> do_signal & handle_signal:
> 
>                 switch (regs->a0) {
>                 case -ERESTARTNOHAND:
>                 case -ERESTARTSYS:
>                 case -ERESTARTNOINTR:
>                         regs->a0 = regs->orig_a0;
>                         regs->epc -= 0x4;
>                         break;
> 
> All above are done in pt_regs and when returning to userspace, a7 will
> be recovered by restore_all in entry.S.

Yes, thanks for that explanation.

Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>