The audit system previously expected arches calling to audit_syscall_exit to
supply as arguments if the syscall was a success and what the return code was.
Audit also provides a helper AUDITSC_RESULT which was supposed to simplify things
by converting from negative retcodes to an audit internal magic value stating
success or failure. This helper was wrong and could indicate that a valid
pointer returned to userspace was a failed syscall. The fix is to fix the
layering foolishness. We now pass audit_syscall_exit a struct pt_reg and it
in turns calls back into arch code to collect the return value and to
determine if the syscall was a success or failure. We also define a generic
is_syscall_success() macro which determines success/failure based on if the
value is < -MAX_ERRNO. This works for arches like x86 which do not use a
separate mechanism to indicate syscall failure.
We make both the is_syscall_success() and regs_return_value() static inlines
instead of macros. The reason is because the audit function must take a void*
for the regs. (uml calls theirs struct uml_pt_regs instead of just struct
pt_regs so audit_syscall_exit can't take a struct pt_regs). Since the audit
function takes a void* we need to use static inlines to cast it back to the
arch correct structure to dereference it.
The other major change is that on some arches, like ia64, MIPS and ppc, we
change regs_return_value() to give us the negative value on syscall failure.
THE only other user of this macro, kretprobe_example.c, won't notice and it
makes the value signed consistently for the audit functions across all archs.
In arch/sh/kernel/ptrace_64.c I see that we were using regs[9] in the old
audit code as the return value. But the ptrace_64.h code defined the macro
regs_return_value() as regs[3]. I have no idea which one is correct, but this
patch now uses the regs_return_value() function, so it now uses regs[3].
For powerpc we previously used regs->result but now use the
regs_return_value() function which uses regs->gprs[3]. regs->gprs[3] is
always positive so the regs_return_value(), much like ia64 makes it negative
before calling the audit code when appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
Acked-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> [for x86 portion]
Acked-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> [for ia64]
Acked-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at> [for uml]
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net> [for sparc]
Acked-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> [for mips]
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> [for ppc]
[ poleg@redhat.com: no need to declare show_regs() in ptrace.h, sched.h does this ]
Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
While in theory user_enable_single_step/user_disable_single_step/
user_enable_blockstep could also be provided as an inline or macro there's
no good reason to do so, and having the prototype in one places keeps code
size and confusion down.
Roland said:
The original thought there was that user_enable_single_step() et al
might well be only an instruction or three on a sane machine (as if we
have any of those!), and since there is only one call site inlining
would be beneficial. But I agree that there is no strong reason to care
about inlining it.
As to the arch changes, there is only one thought I'd add to the
record. It was always my thinking that for an arch where
PTRACE_SINGLESTEP does text-modifying breakpoint insertion,
user_enable_single_step() should not be provided. That is,
arch_has_single_step()=>true means that there is an arch facility with
"pure" semantics that does not have any unexpected side effects.
Inserting a breakpoint might do very unexpected strange things in
multi-threaded situations. Aside from that, it is a peculiar side
effect that user_{enable,disable}_single_step() should cause COW
de-sharing of text pages and so forth. For PTRACE_SINGLESTEP, all these
peculiarities are the status quo ante for that arch, so having
arch_ptrace() itself do those is one thing. But for building other
things in the future, it is nicer to have a uniform "pure" semantics
that arch-independent code can expect.
OTOH, all such arch issues are really up to the arch maintainer. As
of today, there is nothing but ptrace using user_enable_single_step() et
al so it's a distinction without a practical difference. If/when there
are other facilities that use user_enable_single_step() and might care,
the affected arch's can revisit the question when someone cares about
the quality of the arch support for said new facility.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>
Acked-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
All architectures now use the generic compat_sys_ptrace, as should every
new architecture that needs 32bit compat (if we'll ever get another).
Remove the now superflous __ARCH_WANT_COMPAT_SYS_PTRACE define, and also
kill a comment about __ARCH_SYS_PTRACE that was added after
__ARCH_SYS_PTRACE was already gone.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Acked-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
After moving the the include files there were a few clean-ups:
1) Some files used #include <asm-ia64/xyz.h>, changed to <asm/xyz.h>
2) Some comments alerted maintainers to look at various header files to
make matching updates if certain code were to be changed. Updated these
comments to use the new include paths.
3) Some header files mentioned their own names in initial comments. Just
deleted these self references.
Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
