Re: [PATCH 08/17] ptrace/m68k: Stop open coding ptrace_report_syscall

[Michael Schmitz]

Hi Geert,

Am 11.01.2022 um 06:54 schrieb Geert Uytterhoeven:
> Hi Al,
>
> CC Michael/m68k,
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 5:20 PM Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 04:26:57PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 3, 2022 at 10:33 PM Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > The generic function ptrace_report_syscall does a little more
> > > > than syscall_trace on m68k.  The function ptrace_report_syscall
> > > > stops early if PT_TRACED is not set, it sets ptrace_message,
> > > > and returns the result of fatal_signal_pending.
> > > >
> > > > Setting ptrace_message to a passed in value of 0 is effectively not
> > > > setting ptrace_message, making that additional work a noop.
> > > >
> > > > Returning the result of fatal_signal_pending and letting the caller
> > > > ignore the result becomes a noop in this change.
> > > >
> > > > When a process is ptraced, the flag PT_PTRACED is always set in
> > > > current->ptrace.  Testing for PT_PTRACED in ptrace_report_syscall is
> > > > just an optimization to fail early if the process is not ptraced.
> > > > Later on in ptrace_notify, ptrace_stop will test current->ptrace under
> > > > tasklist_lock and skip performing any work if the task is not ptraced.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > As this depends on the removal of a parameter from
> > > ptrace_report_syscall() earlier in this series:
> > > Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > FWIW, I would suggest taking it a bit further: make syscall_trace_enter()
> > and syscall_trace_leave() in m68k ptrace.c unconditional, replace the
> > calls of syscall_trace() in entry.S with syscall_trace_enter() and
> > syscall_trace_leave() resp. and remove syscall_trace().
> >
> > Geert, do you see any problems with that?  The only difference is that
> > current->ptrace_message would be set to 1 for ptrace stop on entry and
> > 2 - on leave.  Currently m68k just has it 0 all along.
> >
> > It is user-visible (the whole point is to let the tracer see which
> > stop it is - entry or exit one), so somebody using PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG
> > on syscall stops would start seeing 1 or 2 instead of "0 all along".
> > That's how it works on all other architectures (including m68k-nommu),
> > and I doubt that anything in userland will get broken.
> >
> > Behaviour of PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG for other stops (fork, etc.) remains
> > as-is, of course.
>
> In fact Michael did so in "[PATCH v7 1/2] m68k/kernel - wire up
> syscall_trace_enter/leave for m68k"[1], but that's still stuck...
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/1624924520-17567-2-git-send-email-schmitzmic@xxxxxxxxx/

That patch (for reasons I never found out) did interact badly with 
Christoph Hellwig's 'remove set_fs' patches (and Al's signal fixes which 
Christoph's patches are based upon). Caused format errors under memory 
stress tests quite reliably, on my 030 hardware.

Probably needs a fresh look - the signal return path got changed by Al's 
patches IIRC, and I might have relied on offsets to data on the stack 
that are no longer correct with these patches. Or there's a race between 
the syscall trap and signal handling when returning from interrupt 
context ...

Still school hols over here so I won't have much peace and quiet until 
February.

Cheers,

	Michael


> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
>                         Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds