On Tue, 2024-12-03 at 13:23 +0900, Hajime Tazaki wrote:
>
> +#ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> +extern int um_zpoline_enabled;
> +#endif
That doesn't make sense, there's no good reason these two mechanisms
need to be mutually exclusive.
I think you should leave out zpoline initially, get all the other stuff
sorted out, and then add it later as an optimisation where possible (can
map at 0, can rewrite the binary, etc.)
> +void trap_sigsys(struct uml_pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + struct task_struct *tsk = current;
> +
> + pr_info_ratelimited("%s%s[%d]: sigsys ip %p sp %p\n",
> + task_pid_nr(tsk) > 1 ? KERN_INFO : KERN_EMERG,
> + tsk->comm, task_pid_nr(tsk),
> + (void *)UPT_IP(regs), (void *)UPT_SP(regs));
Shouldn't do that, not even rate-limited.
> + if (err) {
> + os_warn("SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER (err=%d, ernro=%d)\n",
> + err, errno);
> + exit(-1);
exit(-1) probably isn't quite right, it's more like a u8.
> + os_info("seccomp: filter syscalls in the range: 0x%lx-0x%lx\n",
> + __userspace_start, __userspace_end);
not sure we need that, but at least it's only once?
> +#ifndef CONFIG_MMU
> +static void sigsys_handler(int sig, struct siginfo *si, mcontext_t *mc)
> +{
> + struct uml_pt_regs r;
> +
> + if (!um_zpoline_enabled) {
> + /* hook syscall via SIGSYS */
> + mc_set_sigsys_hook(mc);
> + } else {
> + /* trap SIGSYS to userspace */
> + get_regs_from_mc(&r, mc);
> + trap_sigsys(&r);
> + /* force handle signals after rt_sigreturn() */
> + mc_set_regs_ip_relay(mc);
I don't understand why this behaves differently with and without
zpoline, it seems it shouldn't need to. Anyway, still think zpoline is
future work.
johannes
