On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 08:13:23PM +0200, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> According to the Power Architecture Linux system call ABI documented in
> [1], when the syscall is made with the sc instruction, both a value and an
> error condition are returned, where r3 register contains the return value,
> and cr0.SO bit specifies the error condition. When cr0.SO is clear, the
> syscall succeeded and r3 is the return value. When cr0.SO is set, the
> syscall failed and r3 is the error value. This syscall return semantics
> was implemented from the very beginning of Power Architecture on Linux,
> and syscall tracers and debuggers like strace that read or modify syscall
> return information also rely on this ABI.
>
> r3 and cr0.SO are exposed directly via struct pt_regs where gpr[3] and
> (ccr & 0x10000000) correspond to r3 and cr0.SO, respectively.
> For example, here is an excerpt from check_syscall_restart() that assigns
> these members of struct pt_regs:
> regs->result = -EINTR;
> regs->gpr[3] = EINTR;
> regs->ccr |= 0x10000000;
> In this example, the semantics of negative ERRORCODE that's being used
> virtually everywhere in generic kernel code is translated to powerpc sc
> syscall return ABI which uses positive ERRORCODE and cr0.SO bit.
>
> Also, r3 and cr0.SO are exposed indirectly via helpers.
> For example, here is an excerpt from syscall_get_error():
> /*
> * If the system call failed,
> * regs->gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE.
> */
> return (regs->ccr & 0x10000000UL) ? -regs->gpr[3] : 0;
> and here is another example, from regs_return_value():
> if (is_syscall_success(regs))
> return regs->gpr[3];
> else
> return -regs->gpr[3];
> In these examples, the powerpc sc syscall return ABI which uses positive
> ERRORCODE and cr0.SO bit is translated to the semantics of negative
> ERRORCODE that's being used virtually everywhere in generic kernel code.
>
> Up to a certain point in time the kernel managed to implement the powerpc
> sc syscall return ABI in all cases where struct pt_regs was exposed to user
> space.
>
> The situation changed when SECCOMP_RET_TRACE support was introduced.
> At this point the -ERRORCODE semantics that was used under the hood to
> implement seccomp on powerpc became exposed to user space. The tracer
> handling PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP is not just able to observe -ENOSYS in gpr[3]
> - this is relatively harmless as at this stage there is no syscall return
> yet so the powerpc sc syscall return ABI does not apply. What's important
> is that the tracer can change the syscall number to -1 thus making the
> syscall fail, and at this point the tracer is also able to specify the
> error value. This has to be done in accordance with the syscall return
> ABI, however, the current implementation of do_seccomp() supports both the
> generic kernel -ERRORCODE return value ABI and the powerpc sc syscall
> return ABI, thanks to syscall_exit_prepare() that converts the former to
> the latter. Consequently, seccomp_bpf selftest passes both with and
> without this change.
>
> Now comes the moment when PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO is going to be
> introduced. PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO is a generic ptrace API that
> complements PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO by letting the ptracer modify
> the details of the system calls the tracee is blocked in.
>
> One of the helpers that have to be used to implement
> PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO is syscall_set_return_value().
> This helper complements other two helpers, syscall_get_error() and
> syscall_get_return_value(), that are currently used to implement
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO on syscall return. When syscall_set_return_value()
> is used to set an error code, the caller specifies it as a negative value
> in -ERRORCODE format.
>
> Unfortunately, this does not work well on powerpc since commit 1b1a3702a65c
> ("powerpc: Don't negate error in syscall_set_return_value()") because
> syscall_set_return_value() does not follow the powerpc sc syscall return
> ABI:
> /*
> * In the general case it's not obvious that we must deal with
> * CCR here, as the syscall exit path will also do that for us.
> * However there are some places, eg. the signal code, which
> * check ccr to decide if the value in r3 is actually an error.
> */
> if (error) {
> regs->ccr |= 0x10000000L;
> regs->gpr[3] = error;
> } else {
> regs->ccr &= ~0x10000000L;
> regs->gpr[3] = val;
> }
>
> The reason why this syscall_set_return_value() implementation was able to
> get away with violating the powerpc sc syscall return ABI is the following:
> Up to now, syscall_set_return_value() on powerpc could be called only from
> do_syscall_trace_enter() via do_seccomp(), there was no way it could be
> called from do_syscall_trace_leave() which is the point where tracers on
> syscall return are activated and the powerpc sc syscall return ABI has
> to be respected.
>
> Introduction of PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO necessitates a change of
> syscall_set_return_value() to comply with the powerpc sc syscall return
> ABI. Without the change, the upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest
> fails with the following diagnostics:
>
> # set_syscall_info.c:119:set_syscall_info:Expected exp_exit->rval (-38) ==
> info->exit.rval (38)
> # set_syscall_info.c:120:set_syscall_info:wait #4: PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO
> #2: exit stop mismatch
>
> Note that since backwards compatibility with the current implementation has
> to be provided, the kernel has to continue supporting simultaneously both
> the generic kernel -ERRORCODE return value ABI and the powerpc sc syscall
> return ABI at least for PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP tracers. Consequently, since
> the point of __secure_computing() invocation and up to the point of
> conversion in syscall_exit_prepare(), gpr[3] may be set according to either
> of these two ABIs. An attempt to address code inconsistencies in syscall
> error return handling that were introduced as a side effect of the dual
> ABI support follows in a separate patch.
>
> Link:
> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/arch/powerpc/syscall64-abi.html#return-value
> [1]
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry V. Levin <l...@strace.io>
> Reviewed-by: Alexey Gladkov <leg...@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h | 6 +++++-
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> index 3dd36c5e334a..422d7735ace6 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/syscall.h
> @@ -82,7 +82,11 @@ static inline void syscall_set_return_value(struct
> task_struct *task,
> */
> if (error) {
> regs->ccr |= 0x10000000L;
> - regs->gpr[3] = error;
> + /*
> + * In case of an error regs->gpr[3] contains
> + * a positive ERRORCODE.
> + */
> + regs->gpr[3] = -error;
> } else {
> regs->ccr &= ~0x10000000L;
> regs->gpr[3] = val;
Given that the PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO API has been merged and this
powerpc issue is now exposed to userspace, can we make it fixed, please?
--
ldv
