[PATCH v2] selftests/seccomp: fix ptrace tests on powerpc
Shuah Khan
skhan at linuxfoundation.org
Sat Sep 12 05:06:49 AEST 2020
On 9/11/20 12:10 PM, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> As pointed out by Michael Ellerman, the ptrace ABI on powerpc does not
> allow or require the return code to be set on syscall entry when
> skipping the syscall. It will always return ENOSYS and the return code
> must be set on syscall exit.
>
> This code does that, behaving more similarly to strace. It still sets
> the return code on entry, which is overridden on powerpc, and it will
> always repeat the same on exit. Also, on powerpc, the errno is not
> inverted, and depends on ccr.so being set.
>
> This has been tested on powerpc and amd64.
>
> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook at google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo <cascardo at canonical.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 81 ++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> index 7a6d40286a42..0ddc0846e9c0 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> @@ -1837,15 +1837,24 @@ void change_syscall(struct __test_metadata *_metadata,
> #endif
>
> /* If syscall is skipped, change return value. */
> - if (syscall == -1)
> + if (syscall == -1) {
> #ifdef SYSCALL_NUM_RET_SHARE_REG
> TH_LOG("Can't modify syscall return on this architecture");
> -
> #elif defined(__xtensa__)
> regs.SYSCALL_RET(regs) = result;
> +#elif defined(__powerpc__)
> + /* Error is signaled by CR0 SO bit and error code is positive. */
> + if (result < 0) {
> + regs.SYSCALL_RET = -result;
> + regs.ccr |= 0x10000000;
> + } else {
> + regs.SYSCALL_RET = result;
> + regs.ccr &= ~0x10000000;
> + }
> #else
> regs.SYSCALL_RET = result;
> #endif
> + }
>
> #ifdef HAVE_GETREGS
> ret = ptrace(PTRACE_SETREGS, tracee, 0, ®s);
> @@ -1897,12 +1906,44 @@ void tracer_seccomp(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
>
> }
>
> +FIXTURE(TRACE_syscall) {
> + struct sock_fprog prog;
> + pid_t tracer, mytid, mypid, parent;
> +};
> +
> +FIXTURE_VARIANT(TRACE_syscall) {
> + /*
> + * All of the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE behaviors can be tested with either
> + * SECCOMP_RET_TRACE+PTRACE_CONT or plain ptrace()+PTRACE_SYSCALL.
> + * This indicates if we should use SECCOMP_RET_TRACE (false), or
> + * ptrace (true).
> + */
> + bool use_ptrace;
> +
> + /*
> + * Some archs (like ppc) only support changing the return code during
> + * syscall exit when ptrace is used. As the syscall number might not
> + * be available anymore during syscall exit, it needs to be saved
> + * during syscall enter.
> + */
> + int syscall_nr;
> +};
> +
> +FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(TRACE_syscall, ptrace) {
> + .use_ptrace = true,
> +};
> +
> +FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(TRACE_syscall, seccomp) {
> + .use_ptrace = false,
> +};
> +
> void tracer_ptrace(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
> int status, void *args)
> {
> int ret, nr;
> unsigned long msg;
> static bool entry;
> + FIXTURE_VARIANT(TRACE_syscall) * variant = args;
>
> /*
> * The traditional way to tell PTRACE_SYSCALL entry/exit
> @@ -1916,10 +1957,15 @@ void tracer_ptrace(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
> EXPECT_EQ(entry ? PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY
> : PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_EXIT, msg);
>
> - if (!entry)
> + if (!entry && !variant)
> return;
>
> - nr = get_syscall(_metadata, tracee);
> + if (entry)
> + nr = get_syscall(_metadata, tracee);
> + else if (variant)
> + nr = variant->syscall_nr;
> + if (variant)
> + variant->syscall_nr = nr;
>
> if (nr == __NR_getpid)
> change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, __NR_getppid, 0);
> @@ -1929,29 +1975,6 @@ void tracer_ptrace(struct __test_metadata *_metadata, pid_t tracee,
> change_syscall(_metadata, tracee, -1, -ESRCH);
> }
>
> -FIXTURE(TRACE_syscall) {
> - struct sock_fprog prog;
> - pid_t tracer, mytid, mypid, parent;
> -};
> -
> -FIXTURE_VARIANT(TRACE_syscall) {
> - /*
> - * All of the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE behaviors can be tested with either
> - * SECCOMP_RET_TRACE+PTRACE_CONT or plain ptrace()+PTRACE_SYSCALL.
> - * This indicates if we should use SECCOMP_RET_TRACE (false), or
> - * ptrace (true).
> - */
> - bool use_ptrace;
> -};
> -
> -FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(TRACE_syscall, ptrace) {
> - .use_ptrace = true,
> -};
> -
> -FIXTURE_VARIANT_ADD(TRACE_syscall, seccomp) {
> - .use_ptrace = false,
> -};
> -
> FIXTURE_SETUP(TRACE_syscall)
> {
> struct sock_filter filter[] = {
> @@ -1992,7 +2015,9 @@ FIXTURE_SETUP(TRACE_syscall)
> self->tracer = setup_trace_fixture(_metadata,
> variant->use_ptrace ? tracer_ptrace
> : tracer_seccomp,
> - NULL, variant->use_ptrace);
> + variant->use_ptrace ? (void *) variant
> + : NULL,
> + variant->use_ptrace);
>
> ret = prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0);
> ASSERT_EQ(0, ret);
>
Hi Kees,
If you want to take this through your tree:
Acked-by: Shuah Khan <skhan at linuxfoundation.org>
thanks,
-- Shuah
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list