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

Dmitry V. Levin
2025-01-14T13:48:46Z

On Tue, Jan 14, 2025 at 02:00:16PM +0100, Alexey Gladkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 07:10:54PM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > 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()").
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry V. Levin <ldv@strace.io>
> > ---
> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> > index 3dd36c5e334a..422d7735ace6 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> > @@ -82,7 +82,11 @@ static inline void syscall_set_return_value(struct task_struct *task,
> > */
> > if (error) {
> > regs->ccr |= 0x10000000L;
> > - regs->gpr[3] = error;
> > + /*
> > + * In case of an error regs->gpr[3] contains
> > + * a positive ERRORCODE.
> > + */
> > + regs->gpr[3] = -error;
>
> After this change the syscall_get_error() will return positive value if
> the system call failed. Since syscall_get_error() still believes
> regs->gpr[3] is still positive in case !trap_is_scv().
>
> Or am I missing something?

syscall_get_error() does the following in case of !trap_is_scv():

/*
* If the system call failed,
* regs->gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE.
*/
return (regs->ccr & 0x10000000UL) ? -regs->gpr[3] : 0;

That is, in !trap_is_scv() case it assumes that regs->gpr[3] is positive
and is going to return a negative value (-ERRORCODE).

> It looks like the selftest you mentioned in the commit message doesn't
> check the !trap_is_scv() branch.

The selftest is architecture-agnostic, it just executes syscalls and
checks whether the data returned by PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO meets
expectations. Do you mean that syscall() is not good enough for syscall
invocation from coverage perspective on powerpc?

See also commit d72500f99284 ("powerpc/64s/syscall: Fix ptrace syscall
info with scv syscalls").

--
ldv