[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1621478238.xha1ow4ujh.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 12:40:36 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Cc: Joakim Tjernlund <Joakim.Tjernlund@...inera.com>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, libc-dev@...ts.llvm.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Matheus Castanho <msc@...ux.ibm.com>, musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Linux powerpc new system call instruction and ABI
Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 20, 2021 9:27 am:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 08:51:53AM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 11:26 pm:
>> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 08:59:05PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >> Excerpts from Dmitry V. Levin's message of May 19, 2021 8:24 pm:
>> >> > On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 12:50:24PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> >> With this patch, I think the ptrace ABI should mostly be fixed. I think
>> >> >> a problem remains with applications that look at system call return
>> >> >> registers directly and have powerpc specific error cases. Those probably
>> >> >> will just need to be updated unfortunately. Michael thought it might be
>> >> >> possible to return an indication via ptrace somehow that the syscall is
>> >> >> using a new ABI, so such apps can be updated to test for it. I don't
>> >> >> know how that would be done.
>> >> >
>> >> > Is there any sane way for these applications to handle the scv case?
>> >> > How can they tell that the scv semantics is being used for the given
>> >> > syscall invocation? Can this information be obtained e.g. from struct
>> >> > pt_regs?
>> >>
>> >> Not that I know of. Michael suggested there might be a way to add
>> >> something. ptrace_syscall_info has some pad bytes, could
>> >> we use one for flags bits and set a bit for "new system call ABI"?
>> >
>> > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is an architecture-agnostic API, it hides all
>> > architecture-specific details behind struct ptrace_syscall_info which has
>> > the same meaning on all architectures. ptrace_syscall_info.exit contains
>> > both rval and is_error fields to support every architecture regardless of
>> > its syscall ABI.
>> >
>> > ptrace_syscall_info.exit is extensible, but every architecture would have
>> > to define a method of telling whether the system call follows the "new
>> > system call ABI" conventions to export this bit of information.
>>
>> It's already architecture speicfic if you look at registers of syscall
>> exit state so I don't see a problem with a flag that ppc can use for
>> ABI.
>
> To be honest, I don't see anything architecture-specific in
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO API. Yes, it's implementation uses various
> functions defined in asm/syscall.h, but this doesn't make the interface
> architecture-specific.
No. But a field or flag it exports could be architecture dependent.
It doesn't detract independence from the rest of the ABI. That said...
> PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO saves its users from necessity to be aware of
> tracee registers. That's why the only place where strace has to deal
> with tracee registers nowadays is syscall tampering. The most reliable
> solution is to introduce PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO, this would make the
> whole syscall abi issue irrelevant for ptracers, maybe the time has come
> to implement it.
>
> Unfortunately, extending ptrace API takes time, and it's not going to be
> backported to older kernels anyway, but scv-enabled kernels are already
> in the wild, so we need a quick powerpc-specific fix that would be
> backported to all maintained scv-enabled kernels.
>
> [...]
>> > I wonder why can't this information be just exported to the tracer via
>> > struct pt_regs?
>>
>> It might be able to, I don't see why that would be superior though.
>>
>> Where could you put it... I guess it could go in the trap field in a
>> high bit. But could that break things that just test for syscall
>> trap number (and don't care about register ABI)? I'm not sure.
>
> Looks like struct pt_regs.trap already contains the information that could
> be used to tell 'sc' from 'scv': if (pt_regs.trap & ~0xf) == 0x3000, then
> it's scv. Is my reading of arch/powerpc/include/asm/ptrace.h correct?
Hmm, I think it is. Certainly in the kernel regs struct it is, I had in
my mind that we put it to 0xc00 when populating the user struct for
compatibility, but it seems not. So I guess this would work.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
