Patchwork S390: Sync ptrace.h with kernel. [BZ #21539]

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Stefan Liebler
Date July 7, 2017, 1:53 p.m.
Message ID <035660ff-d3ea-e05c-2b38-76a8be225aa3@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/21468/
State Committed
Headers show

Comments

Stefan Liebler - July 7, 2017, 1:53 p.m.
On 07/07/2017 12:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 12:22 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> +      /* Ptrace request 12 is done with zero data argument:
>> +	 -If the kernel has support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK (then the kernel
>> +	 header asm/ptrace.h defines this macro), the ptrace call is not allowed
>> +	 to fail and has to continue the tracee until next taken branch.
>> +
>> +	 -If the kernel (<3.15) has no support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK, the
>> +	 ptrace call has to fail with EIO. Then I continue the tracee with
>> +	 PTRACE_CONT.
>> +
>> +	 -If the request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, it will fail too.
>> +	 It fails with EFAULT on intel / power as data argument is NULL.
>> +	 According to the man-page: "Unfortunately, under Linux, different
>> +	 variations of this fault will return EIO or EFAULT more or less
>> +	 arbitrarily".
>> +	 But if request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, the first ptrace
>> +	 call will touch the buffer which is detected by this test.  */
> 
> I think the comment is still a bit off.  I think it is only necessary to
> retain the second two lines, the other things is already implied by the
> short comments in the code below.
okay. I removed the other lines.
> 
> (I have not tested whether this actually works.  I assume you have
> checked a couple of userspace/kernel permutations.)
Yes. I've run the test on several machines.
> 
> Thanks,
> Florian
> 


If this is okay, I'll commit it on Monday.

Bye.
Stefan
Stefan Liebler - July 11, 2017, 8:39 a.m.
On 07/07/2017 03:53 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
> On 07/07/2017 12:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On 07/07/2017 12:22 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>> +      /* Ptrace request 12 is done with zero data argument:
>>> +     -If the kernel has support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK (then the kernel
>>> +     header asm/ptrace.h defines this macro), the ptrace call is not 
>>> allowed
>>> +     to fail and has to continue the tracee until next taken branch.
>>> +
>>> +     -If the kernel (<3.15) has no support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK, the
>>> +     ptrace call has to fail with EIO. Then I continue the tracee with
>>> +     PTRACE_CONT.
>>> +
>>> +     -If the request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, it will 
>>> fail too.
>>> +     It fails with EFAULT on intel / power as data argument is NULL.
>>> +     According to the man-page: "Unfortunately, under Linux, different
>>> +     variations of this fault will return EIO or EFAULT more or less
>>> +     arbitrarily".
>>> +     But if request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, the first 
>>> ptrace
>>> +     call will touch the buffer which is detected by this test.  */
>>
>> I think the comment is still a bit off.  I think it is only necessary to
>> retain the second two lines, the other things is already implied by the
>> short comments in the code below.
> okay. I removed the other lines.
>>
>> (I have not tested whether this actually works.  I assume you have
>> checked a couple of userspace/kernel permutations.)
> Yes. I've run the test on several machines.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Florian
>>
> 
> 
> If this is okay, I'll commit it on Monday.
Committed.
> 
> Bye.
> Stefan

Patch

commit 5a547ac7caceb9ad2ac4903966b9d5294dfa4f7c
Author: Stefan Liebler <stli@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri Jul 7 15:07:42 2017 +0200

    S390: Fix tst-ptrace-singleblock if kernel does not support PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK.
    
    The request PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK was introduced in Linux 3.15.  Thus the ptrace call
    will fail on older kernels.
    Thus the test is now testing PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK with data argument pointing to a
    buffer on stack which is assumed to fail.  If the request would be interpreted as
    PTRACE_GETREGS, then the ptrace call will not fail and the regs are written to buf.
    
    If we run with a kernel with support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK a ptrace call with
    data=NULL, returns zero with no error.  If we run with a kernel without support for
    PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK a ptrace call with data=NULL reports an error.
    In the latter case, the test is just continuing with PTRACE_CONT.
    
    ChangeLog:
    
    	* sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/tst-ptrace-singleblock.c:
    	Support running on kernels without PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK.

diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/tst-ptrace-singleblock.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/tst-ptrace-singleblock.c
index 95a2f55..c8eea0a 100644
--- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/tst-ptrace-singleblock.c
+++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/tst-ptrace-singleblock.c
@@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ 
 #include <elf.h>
 #include <support/xunistd.h>
 #include <support/check.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <errno.h>
 
 /* Ensure that we use the PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK definition from glibc ptrace.h
    in tracer_func.  We need the kernel ptrace.h for structs ptrace_area
@@ -63,6 +65,10 @@  tracer_func (int pid)
   gregset_t regs2;
 
   int status;
+  int ret;
+#define MAX_CHARS_IN_BUF 4096
+  char buf[MAX_CHARS_IN_BUF + 1];
+  size_t buf_count;
 
   while (1)
     {
@@ -104,11 +110,55 @@  tracer_func (int pid)
 	 The s390 kernel has no support for PTRACE_GETREGS!
 	 Thus glibc ptrace.h is adjusted to match kernel ptrace.h.
 
+	 The glibc sys/ptrace.h header contains the identifier
+	 PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK in enum __ptrace_request.  In contrast, the kernel
+	 asm/ptrace.h header defines PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK.
+
 	 This test ensures, that PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK defined in glibc
 	 works as expected.  If the kernel would interpret it as
 	 PTRACE_GETREGS, then the tracee will not make any progress
-	 and this testcase will time out.  */
-      TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (ptrace (req_singleblock, pid, NULL, NULL) == 0);
+	 and this testcase will time out or the ptrace call will fail with
+	 different errors.  */
+
+      /* Ptrace request 12 is first done with data argument pointing to
+	 a buffer:
+	 -If request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, it will store the regs
+	 to buffer without an error.
+
+	 -If request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK, it will fail
+	 as data argument is used as signal-number and the address of
+	 buf is no valid signal.
+
+	 -If request 12 is not implemented, it will also fail.
+
+	 Here the test expects that the buffer is untouched and an error is
+	 returned.  */
+      memset (buf, 'a', MAX_CHARS_IN_BUF);
+      ret = ptrace (req_singleblock, pid, NULL, buf);
+      buf [MAX_CHARS_IN_BUF] = '\0';
+      buf_count = strspn (buf, "a");
+      TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (buf_count == MAX_CHARS_IN_BUF);
+      TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (ret == -1);
+
+      /* If request 12 is interpreted as PTRACE_GETREGS, the first ptrace
+	 call will touch the buffer which is detected by this test.  */
+      errno = 0;
+      ret = ptrace (req_singleblock, pid, NULL, NULL);
+      if (ret == 0)
+	{
+	  /* The kernel has support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK ptrace request. */
+	  TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (errno == 0);
+	}
+      else
+	{
+	  /* The kernel (< 3.15) has no support for PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK ptrace
+	     request. */
+	  TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (errno == EIO);
+	  TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (ret == -1);
+
+	  /* Just continue tracee until it exits normally.  */
+	  TEST_VERIFY_EXIT (ptrace (PTRACE_CONT, pid, NULL, NULL) == 0);
+	}
     }
 }