[PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value()

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 14/01/2025 à 18:04, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 06:34:44PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 13/01/2025 à 18:10, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit :
>>> Bring syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error(),
>>> and let upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc.
>>>
>>> This reverts commit 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in
>>> syscall_set_return_value()").
>>
>> There is a clear detailed explanation in that commit of why it needs to
>> be done.
>>
>> If you think that commit is wrong you have to explain why with at least
>> the same level of details.
> 
> OK, please have a look whether this explanation is clear and detailed enough:
> 
> =======
> powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value()
> 
> When syscall_set_return_value() is used to set an error code, the caller
> specifies it as a negative value in -ERRORCODE form.
> 
> In !trap_is_scv case the error code is traditionally stored as follows:
> gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE, and ccr has 0x10000000 flag set.
> Here are a few examples to illustrate this convention.  The first one
> is from syscall_get_error():
>          /*
>           * If the system call failed,
>           * regs->gpr[3] contains a positive ERRORCODE.
>           */
>          return (regs->ccr & 0x10000000UL) ? -regs->gpr[3] : 0;
> 
> The second example is from regs_return_value():
>          if (is_syscall_success(regs))
>                  return regs->gpr[3];
>          else
>                  return -regs->gpr[3];
> 
> The third example is from check_syscall_restart():
>          regs->result = -EINTR;
>          regs->gpr[3] = EINTR;
>          regs->ccr |= 0x10000000;
> 
> Compared with these examples, the failure of syscall_set_return_value()
> to assign a positive ERRORCODE into regs->gpr[3] is clearly visible:
> 	/*
> 	 * 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;
> 	}
> 
> This fix brings syscall_set_return_value() in sync with syscall_get_error()
> and lets upcoming ptrace/set_syscall_info selftest pass on powerpc.
> 
> Fixes: 1b1a3702a65c ("powerpc: Don't negate error in syscall_set_return_value()").
> =======
> 
> 

I think there is still something going wrong.

do_seccomp() sets regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS; by default.

Then it calls __secure_computing() which returns what __seccomp_filter() 
returns.

In case of error, __seccomp_filter() calls syscall_set_return_value() 
with a negative value then returns -1

do_seccomp() is called by do_syscall_trace_enter() which returns -1 when 
do_seccomp() doesn't return 0.

do_syscall_trace_enter() is called by system_call_exception() and 
returns -1, so syscall_exception() returns regs->gpr[3]

In entry_32.S, transfer_to_syscall, syscall_exit_prepare() is then 
called with the return of syscall_exception() as first parameter, which 
leads to:

	if (unlikely(r3 >= (unsigned long)-MAX_ERRNO) && is_not_scv) {
		if (likely(!(ti_flags & (_TIF_NOERROR | _TIF_RESTOREALL)))) {
			r3 = -r3;
			regs->ccr |= 0x10000000; /* Set SO bit in CR */
		}
	}

By chance, because you have already changed the sign of gpr[3], the 
above test fails and nothing is done to r3, and because you have also 
already set regs->ccr it works.

But all this looks inconsistent with the fact that do_seccomp sets 
-ENOSYS as default value

Also, when do_seccomp() returns 0, do_syscall_trace_enter() check the 
syscall number and when it is wrong it goes to skip: which sets 
regs->gpr[3] = -ENOSYS;

So really I think it is not in line with your changes to set positive 
value in gpr[3].

Maybe your change is still correct but it needs to be handled completely 
in that case.

Christophe