Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value()

Dmitry V. Levin
2025-01-23T23:43:23Z

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);
}
}

--
ldv