On 10/04/2014 12:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:08:05PM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
another (big) problem.
There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
'syscallno' in
On 10/04/2014 12:23 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:08:05PM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
another (big) problem.
There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
'syscallno' in
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:08:05PM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Will,
>
> When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
> another (big) problem.
> There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
> 'syscallno' in pt_regs to -1 in start_thread() and
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 12:08:05PM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
another (big) problem.
There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
'syscallno' in pt_regs to -1 in start_thread() and
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
another (big) problem.
There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
'syscallno' in pt_regs to -1 in start_thread() and restore_sigframe(),
respectively.
Since syscallno is not valid anymore in
Will,
When I was looking into syscall_trace_exit() more closely, I found
another (big) problem.
There are two system calls, execve() and rt_sigreturn(), which change
'syscallno' in pt_regs to -1 in start_thread() and restore_sigframe(),
respectively.
Since syscallno is not valid anymore in
On 09/02/2014 06:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because,
On 09/02/2014 06:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:16:22AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> > On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>> 1)
> >>> setting x0
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
>>> 1)
>>> setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued
>>> syscall(-1) will
>>>
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued syscall(-1)
will
return a bogus value when audit tracing is on.
Please note that, on arm,
On 09/01/2014 08:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:55:46AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case.
On 09/01/2014 08:37 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:55:46AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case.
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued syscall(-1)
will
return a bogus value when audit tracing is on.
Please note that, on arm,
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued
syscall(-1) will
return a bogus
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 10:16:22AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:47:29PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 09/01/2014 08:47 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> 1)
> setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued
> syscall(-1) will
> return a bogus value when audit tracing is on.
>
> Please note that, on arm,
> not traced traced
>
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:55:46AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case.
> >> syscall_trace_enter() should not return a
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:55:46AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
Oops, you're absolutely right. I didn't think of this case.
syscall_trace_enter() should not return a syscallno
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 02:55:46PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
1)
setting x0 to -ENOSYS is necessary because, otherwise, user-issued
syscall(-1) will
return a bogus value when audit tracing is on.
Please note that, on arm,
not traced traced
--
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
index
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
> > wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> >> index 8876049..c54dbcc 100644
> >> ---
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
index 8876049..c54dbcc 100644
On 08/27/2014 02:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 01:35:17AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
wrote:
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch enables this semantics, but there is a restriction here:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
wrote:
> If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
> be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
> This patch enables this semantics, but there is a restriction here:
>
>when syscall(-1) is issued by
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch enables this semantics, but there is a restriction here:
when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call
and modify a return
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch enables this semantics, but there is a restriction here:
when syscall(-1) is issued by user, tracer cannot skip this system call
and modify a return
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch enables this semantics, but there is a restriction here:
when
On 08/22/2014 02:08 AM, Kees Cook wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 3:56 AM, AKASHI Takahiro
takahiro.aka...@linaro.org wrote:
If tracer specifies -1 as a syscall number, this traced system call should
be skipped with a value in x0 used as a return value.
This patch enables this semantics, but
30 matches
Mail list logo
