diff mbox

[v7,2/6] arm64: ptrace: allow tracer to skip a system call

Message ID 1412243176-16192-3-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

AKASHI Takahiro Oct. 2, 2014, 9:46 a.m. UTC
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here:

   when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call
   and modify a return value at syscall entry.

In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as
a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned,
especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall.
So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to
change a return value at syscall exit.

Please also note:
* syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and
  audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call
  (that is, -1).
  In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry()
  might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call
  being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry().

* syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected
  in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS)
  is not used in this case, we may neglect the case.

Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h |    8 ++++++++
 arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S       |    4 ++++
 arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c      |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
 3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Will Deacon Oct. 8, 2014, 2:23 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
> be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
> This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here:
> 
>    when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call
>    and modify a return value at syscall entry.
> 
> In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as
> a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned,
> especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall.
> So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to
> change a return value at syscall exit.
> 
> Please also note:
> * syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and
>   audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call
>   (that is, -1).
>   In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry()
>   might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call
>   being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry().
> 
> * syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected
>   in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS)
>   is not used in this case, we may neglect the case.
> 
> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h |    8 ++++++++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S       |    4 ++++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c      |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@
>  #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR		0x10000
>  #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR		0x10004
>  #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR		0x10008
> +
> +/*
> + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1
> + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).
> + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check.
> + */
> +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no)	((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1)

I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we
already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into
syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the
mask (the cast is enough).

> +
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  
>  /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>  #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>  #include <asm/errno.h>
>  #include <asm/esr.h>
> +#include <asm/ptrace.h>
>  #include <asm/thread_info.h>
>  #include <asm/unistd.h>
>  
> @@ -671,6 +672,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc)
>  __sys_trace:
>  	mov	x0, sp
>  	bl	syscall_trace_enter
> +	cmp	w0, #-1				// skip the syscall?
> +	b.eq	__sys_trace_return_skipped
>  	adr	lr, __sys_trace_return		// return address
>  	uxtw	scno, w0			// syscall number (possibly new)
>  	mov	x1, sp				// pointer to regs
> @@ -685,6 +688,7 @@ __sys_trace:
>  
>  __sys_trace_return:
>  	str	x0, [sp]			// save returned x0
> +__sys_trace_return_skipped:
>  	mov	x0, sp
>  	bl	syscall_trace_exit
>  	b	ret_to_user
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
>  
>  asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
> +	unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno;
> +
>  	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
>  		tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
>  
> @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  		trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno);
>  
>  	audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno,
> -		regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
> +			regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1],
> +			regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
> +
> +	if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) &&
> +			IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1).

Compatibility with what? arch/arm/?

> +		 *
> +		 * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this
> +		 * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to
> +		 * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this
> +		 * might result in a bogus value being returned.

This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so,
why is that acceptable?

> +		 * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal
> +		 * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY),
> +		 * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this
> +		 * case, we may neglect the case.
> +		 */

I think can you remove thise NOTE, it's not very informative.

Will
AKASHI Takahiro Oct. 9, 2014, 4:29 a.m. UTC | #2
On 10/08/2014 11:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>> If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
>> be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
>> This patch implements this semantics, but there is one restriction here:
>>
>>     when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call
>>     and modify a return value at syscall entry.
>>
>> In order to ease this flavor, we need to take whatever value x0 has as
>> a return value, but this might result in a bogus value being returned,
>> especially when tracer doesn't do anything against this syscall.
>> So we always return ENOSYS instead, while we still have another chance to
>> change a return value at syscall exit.
>>
>> Please also note:
>> * syscall entry tracing and syscall exit tracing (ftrace tracepoint and
>>    audit) are always executed, if enabled, even when skipping a system call
>>    (that is, -1).
>>    In this way, we can avoid a potential bug where audit_syscall_entry()
>>    might be called without audit_syscall_exit() at the previous system call
>>    being called, that would cause OOPs in audit_syscall_entry().
>>
>> * syscallno may also be set to -1 if a fatal signal (SIGKILL) is detected
>>    in tracehook_report_syscall_entry(), but since a value set to x0 (ENOSYS)
>>    is not used in this case, we may neglect the case.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h |    8 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S       |    4 ++++
>>   arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c      |   23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   3 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>> index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
>> @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@
>>   #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR		0x10000
>>   #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR		0x10004
>>   #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR		0x10008
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1
>> + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).
>> + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check.
>> + */
>> +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no)	((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1)
>
> I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we
> already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into
> syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the
> mask (the cast is enough).

I remember it was necessary for compat PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL, but
will double-check it anyway.

>> +
>>   #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>
>>   /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>   #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
>>   #include <asm/errno.h>
>>   #include <asm/esr.h>
>> +#include <asm/ptrace.h>
>>   #include <asm/thread_info.h>
>>   #include <asm/unistd.h>
>>
>> @@ -671,6 +672,8 @@ ENDPROC(el0_svc)
>>   __sys_trace:
>>   	mov	x0, sp
>>   	bl	syscall_trace_enter
>> +	cmp	w0, #-1				// skip the syscall?
>> +	b.eq	__sys_trace_return_skipped
>>   	adr	lr, __sys_trace_return		// return address
>>   	uxtw	scno, w0			// syscall number (possibly new)
>>   	mov	x1, sp				// pointer to regs
>> @@ -685,6 +688,7 @@ __sys_trace:
>>
>>   __sys_trace_return:
>>   	str	x0, [sp]			// save returned x0
>> +__sys_trace_return_skipped:
>>   	mov	x0, sp
>>   	bl	syscall_trace_exit
>>   	b	ret_to_user
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
>> @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
>>
>>   asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>   {
>> +	unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno;
>> +
>>   	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
>>   		tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
>>
>> @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>   		trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno);
>>
>>   	audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno,
>> -		regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
>> +			regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1],
>> +			regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
>> +
>> +	if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) &&
>> +			IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) {
>> +		/*
>> +		 * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1).
>
> Compatibility with what? arch/arm/?

with the case where a process is *not* traced (including audit).

>> +		 *
>> +		 * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this
>> +		 * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to
>> +		 * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this
>> +		 * might result in a bogus value being returned.
>
> This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so,
> why is that acceptable?

I mean that syscall(-1) always returns -1 with ENOSYS.

Let's think about the case that we didn't have this 'if' statement.
If a debugger catches an user-issued syscall(-1), but let it go without
doing anything (especially changing a value in x0), this syscall will
return an original value in x0, which is the first argument of syscall(-1).
I mentioned this as "bogus."
In this way, a traced process would see a different behavior of syscall(-1).
(On arm, this doesn't happen because syscall(-1) is supposed to raise SIGILL.)
(On x86, this doesn't happen, probably, because syscall arguments are passed
via a stack and we can set a default return value in a register to ENOSYS.)

To avoid this incompatibility, there is no way but to always return -1 in this path
because the kernel doesn't know whether a debugger let x0 unchanged on purpose or not.
This is also the reason why I wanted to have a dedicated ptrace command to set
a return value in skipping a system call.

If we don't care about such erroneous (and exceptional) behaviors, we don't
need this 'if' statement.

Did I make it clear?

>> +		 * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal
>> +		 * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY),
>> +		 * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this
>> +		 * case, we may neglect the case.
>> +		 */
>
> I think can you remove thise NOTE, it's not very informative.

Okey.
Also remove descriptions from a commit message.

-Takahiro AKASHI

> Will
>
Will Deacon Oct. 10, 2014, 11:05 a.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 05:29:33AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 11:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 10:46:12AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> >> index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
> >> @@ -65,6 +65,14 @@
> >>   #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR		0x10000
> >>   #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR		0x10004
> >>   #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR		0x10008
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1
> >> + * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).
> >> + * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check.
> >> + */
> >> +#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no)	((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1)
> >
> > I don't think this macro is very useful, especially considering that we
> > already use ~0UL explicitly in other places. Just move the comment into
> > syscall_trace_enter and be done with it. I also don't think you need the
> > mask (the cast is enough).
> 
> I remember it was necessary for compat PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL, but
> will double-check it anyway.

Ok, thanks.

> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> @@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@ static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
> >>
> >>   asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >>   {
> >> +	unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno;
> >> +
> >>   	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
> >>   		tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
> >>
> >> @@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >>   		trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno);
> >>
> >>   	audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno,
> >> -		regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
> >> +			regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1],
> >> +			regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
> >> +
> >> +	if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) &&
> >> +			IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) {
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1).
> >
> > Compatibility with what? arch/arm/?
> 
> with the case where a process is *not* traced (including audit).

Ok, please make that explicit in the comment.

> >> +		 *
> >> +		 * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this
> >> +		 * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to
> >> +		 * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this
> >> +		 * might result in a bogus value being returned.
> >
> > This comment isn't helping me. Are we returning a bogus value or not? If so,
> > why is that acceptable?
> 
> I mean that syscall(-1) always returns -1 with ENOSYS.
> 
> Let's think about the case that we didn't have this 'if' statement.
> If a debugger catches an user-issued syscall(-1), but let it go without
> doing anything (especially changing a value in x0), this syscall will
> return an original value in x0, which is the first argument of syscall(-1).
> I mentioned this as "bogus."
> In this way, a traced process would see a different behavior of syscall(-1).
> (On arm, this doesn't happen because syscall(-1) is supposed to raise SIGILL.)
> (On x86, this doesn't happen, probably, because syscall arguments are passed
> via a stack and we can set a default return value in a register to ENOSYS.)

In which case, it's worth mentioning this in the comment and being explicit
that this only applies to -1, as that's the same value we use to indicate
that the syscall should be skipped. syscall(-2), for example, doesn't have
an issue and will always return -ENOSYS.

Will
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
index 41ed9e1..736ebc3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ptrace.h
@@ -65,6 +65,14 @@ 
 #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_ADDR		0x10000
 #define COMPAT_PT_DATA_ADDR		0x10004
 #define COMPAT_PT_TEXT_END_ADDR		0x10008
+
+/*
+ * System call will be skipped if a syscall number is changed to -1
+ * with ptrace(PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL).
+ * Upper 32-bit should be ignored for safe check.
+ */
+#define IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(no)	((int)(no & 0xffffffff) == -1)
+
 #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
 
 /* sizeof(struct user) for AArch32 */
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
index f0b5e51..b53a1c5 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
@@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ 
 #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
 #include <asm/errno.h>
 #include <asm/esr.h>
+#include <asm/ptrace.h>
 #include <asm/thread_info.h>
 #include <asm/unistd.h>
 
@@ -671,6 +672,8 @@  ENDPROC(el0_svc)
 __sys_trace:
 	mov	x0, sp
 	bl	syscall_trace_enter
+	cmp	w0, #-1				// skip the syscall?
+	b.eq	__sys_trace_return_skipped
 	adr	lr, __sys_trace_return		// return address
 	uxtw	scno, w0			// syscall number (possibly new)
 	mov	x1, sp				// pointer to regs
@@ -685,6 +688,7 @@  __sys_trace:
 
 __sys_trace_return:
 	str	x0, [sp]			// save returned x0
+__sys_trace_return_skipped:
 	mov	x0, sp
 	bl	syscall_trace_exit
 	b	ret_to_user
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
index 2842f9f..6b11c6a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
@@ -1126,6 +1126,8 @@  static void tracehook_report_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs,
 
 asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
 {
+	unsigned int orig_syscallno = regs->syscallno;
+
 	if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
 		tracehook_report_syscall(regs, PTRACE_SYSCALL_ENTER);
 
@@ -1133,7 +1135,26 @@  asmlinkage int syscall_trace_enter(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		trace_sys_enter(regs, regs->syscallno);
 
 	audit_syscall_entry(syscall_get_arch(), regs->syscallno,
-		regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1], regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
+			regs->orig_x0, regs->regs[1],
+			regs->regs[2], regs->regs[3]);
+
+	if (IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(regs->syscallno) &&
+			IS_SKIP_SYSCALL(orig_syscallno)) {
+		/*
+		 * For compatibility, we handles user-issued syscall(-1).
+		 *
+		 * RESTRICTION: we can't modify a return value here in this
+		 * specific case. In order to ease this flavor, we have to
+		 * take whatever value x0 has as a return value, but this
+		 * might result in a bogus value being returned.
+		 *
+		 * NOTE: syscallno may also be set to -1 if fatal signal
+		 * is detected in tracehook_report_syscall(ENTRY),
+		 * but since a value set to x0 here is not used in this
+		 * case, we may neglect the case.
+		 */
+		regs->regs[0] = -ENOSYS;
+	}
 
 	return regs->syscallno;
 }