Hi,
On 02/18/2014 02:35 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 10:07:31AM +0000, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Currently syscall_trace() is called only for ptrace.
> With additional TIF_xx flags introduced, it is now called in all the cases
> of audit, ftrace and seccomp in addition to ptrace.
> Those features will be implemented later, but it's safe to include them
> now because they can not be turned on anyway.
>
> Signed-off-by: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi(a)linaro.org>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h |   13 +++++++++++++
>   arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S            |    5 +++--
>   arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c           |   11 +++++------
>   3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> index 720e70b..c3df797 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h
 [...]
> +#define _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL	(_TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE | _TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT | \
> +				 _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT | _TIF_SECCOMP)
 This is called _TIF_SYSCALL_WORK on arch/arm/, any reason not to follow the
 naming convention here? 
This is called _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL on arch/x86 :-)
That is the only reason, and so I don't have any objection to following arm
if you prefer it.
>   #endif /* __KERNEL__ */
>   #endif /* __ASM_THREAD_INFO_H */
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> index 39ac630..c94b2ab 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/entry.S
> @@ -631,8 +631,9 @@ el0_svc_naked:					// compat entry point
>   	enable_irq
>
>   	get_thread_info tsk
> -	ldr	x16, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS]		// check for syscall tracing
> -	tbnz	x16, #TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE, __sys_trace // are we tracing syscalls?
> +	ldr	x16, [tsk, #TI_FLAGS]		// check for syscall hooks
> +	tst	x16, #_TIF_WORK_SYSCALL
> +	b.ne	__sys_trace
>   	adr	lr, ret_fast_syscall		// return address
>   	cmp     scno, sc_nr                     // check upper syscall limit
>   	b.hs	ni_sys
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> index 6a8928b..64ce39f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c
> @@ -1062,9 +1062,6 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs *regs)
>   {
>   	unsigned long saved_reg;
>
> -	if (!test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE))
> -		return regs->syscallno;
 This doesn't look right for things like audit (where we don't want to report
 the syscall if only _TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT is set, for example). 
Yeah, it is my screwup.
I will add the guards against TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE (for ptrace),
TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT (for ftrace) and TIF_SYSCALL_AUDIT (for audit).
secure_computing() is protected in itself.
>   	if (is_compat_task()) {
>   		/* AArch32 uses ip (r12) for scratch */
>   		saved_reg = regs->regs[12];
> @@ -1078,10 +1075,12 @@ asmlinkage int syscall_trace(int dir, struct pt_regs *regs)
>   		regs->regs[7] = dir;
>   	}
>
> -	if (dir)
> +	if (dir) {
>   		tracehook_report_syscall_exit(regs, 0);
> -	else if (tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> -		regs->syscallno = ~0UL;
> +	} else {
> +		if (tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs))
> +			regs->syscallno = ~0UL;
> +	}
 This hunk doesn't do anything. 
Well, this is just a change for future patches, but
I will remove it anyway due to the guards mentioned above.
-Takahiro AKASHI
 Will