Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] arm64: ptrace: add PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL

Kees Cook
2014-10-08T15:30:21Z

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> Hi Akashi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:11AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> To allow tracer to be able to change/skip a system call by re-writing
>> a syscall number, there are several approaches:
>>
>> (1) modify x8 register with ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGSET), and handle this case
>> later on in syscall_trace_enter(), or
>> (2) support ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL) as on arm
>>
>> Thinking of the fact that user_pt_regs doesn't expose 'syscallno' to
>> tracer as well as that secure_computing() expects a changed syscall number
>> to be visible, especially case of -1, before this function returns in
>> syscall_trace_enter(), we'd better take (2).
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> index 6913643..49c6174 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/ptrace.h
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>
>> #include <asm/hwcap.h>
>>
>> +#define PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL 23
>>
>> /*
>> * PSR bits
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> index fe63ac5..2842f9f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> @@ -1082,7 +1082,19 @@ const struct user_regset_view *task_user_regset_view(struct task_struct *task)
>> long arch_ptrace(struct task_struct *child, long request,
>> unsigned long addr, unsigned long data)
>> {
>> - return ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + switch (request) {
>> + case PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL:
>> + task_pt_regs(child)->syscallno = data;
>> + ret = 0;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + ret = ptrace_request(child, request, addr, data);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> }
>
> I still don't understand why this needs to be in arch-specific code. Can't
> we implement this in generic code and get architectures to implement
> something like syscall_set_nr if they want the generic interface?

Personally, I'd rather see this land as-is in the arm64 tree, and then
later optimize PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL out of arm/ and arm64/, especially
since only these architectures implement this at the moment.

This is my plan for the asm-generic seccomp.h too -- I'd rather avoid
touching other architectures in this series, as it's easier to review
this way. Then we can optimize the code in a separate series, which
will have those changes isolated, etc.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security