Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 4:58 AM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/14/2015 12:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Linus Torvalds
>>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
>>>> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the attached patch make sense and work?
>>>>
>>>> Btw, I'm not all that happy with it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> I still think Denys' patch also potentially changed what audit and
>>>> strace see for %rax in the pt_regs to -ENOSYS, which I'm not convinced
>>>> is a good change.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe that three-liner patch fixes the immediate problem that
>>>> David sees. David?
>>>
>>> Your patch fixes it for me. The seccomp compat selftests pass again
>>> with audit enabled.
>>
>> Kees, would it be straightforward to rig up the seccomp tests to
>> automatically test compat?  The x86 selftests automatically test both
>> native and compat, and that might be usable as a model.  I did that
>> because it's extremely easy to regress one and not the other.
>
> BTW, why 64-bt code doesn't need this RAX read-back?
>

It's hiding inside of RESTORE_C_REGS_EXCEPT_RCX_R11.

--Andy
--
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/