Re: [PATCH] arm: ptrace: fix syscall modification under PTRACE_O_TRACESECCOMP

[Will Deacon]

Hi Kees,

I'm struggling to see the bug in the current code, so apologies if my
questions aren't helpful.

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 09:27:48PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> An x86 tracer wanting to change the syscall uses PTRACE_SETREGS
> (stored to regs->orig_ax), and an ARM tracer uses PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL
> (stored to current_thread_info()->syscall). When this happens, the
> syscall can change across the call to secure_computing(), since it may
> block on tracer notification, and the tracer can then make changes
> to the process, before we return from secure_computing(). This
> means the code must respect the changed syscall after the
> secure_computing() call in syscall_trace_enter(). The same is true
> for tracehook_report_syscall_entry() which may also block and change
> the syscall.

I don't think I understand what you mean by `the code must respect the
changed syscall'. The current code does indeed issue the new syscall, so are
you more concerned with secure_computing changing ->syscall, then the
debugger can't see the new syscall when it sees the trap from tracehook?
Are these even supposed to inter-operate?

> The x86 code handles this (it expects orig_ax to always be the
> desired syscall). In the ARM case, this means we should not be touching
> current_thread_info()->syscall after its initial assignment. All failures
> should result in a -1 syscall, though.

The only time we explicitly touch ->syscall is when we're aborting the call
(i.e. writing -1), which I think is fine.

Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/