On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 08:43:07AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hi Akashi,
> On 06/24/2014 05:54 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 08:46:52PM +0100, Kees Cook wrote:
> >> What's the state of seccomp on arm64? I saw a series back in March,
> >> but nothing since then? It looked complete, but I haven't set up a
> >> test environment yet to verify.
> >
> > I think Akashi was going to repost `real soon now' so we can include them
> > for 3.17. He missed the merge window last time around.
>
> I took a quick look at the current implementation of ptrace.
> ptrace(PTRACE_GETREGSET/SETREGSET), eventually gpr_get/set(), handles only
> 'struct user_pt_regs', and we have no way to modify orig_x0 nor syscallno
> in 'struct pt_regs' directly.
> So it seems to me that we can't change a system call by ptrace().
> Do I misunderstand anything?
No, it looks like you have a point here. I don't think userspace has any
business with orig_x0, but changing syscallno is certainly useful. I can
think of two ways to fix this:
(1) Updating syscallno based on w8, but this ties us to the current ABI
and could get messy if this register changes in the future.
(2) Adding a PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL request, like we have for arch/arm/,
but that means adding arch-specific stuff to arch_ptrace (which
currently goes straight to ptrace_request on arm64).
It looks like x86 uses orig_ax, which I *think* means we would go with
(1) above if we followed their lead.
Anybody else have an opinion about this?
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
