On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 04:51:44PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 11:50:12AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 03:45:47PM +0800, Pi-Hsun Shih wrote:
> > > For syscall number smaller than 0xf0000, arm calls sys_ni_syscall
> > > instead of arm_syscall in arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S, which returns
> > > -ENOSYS instead of raising SIGILL. Mirror this behavior for compat
> > > syscalls in arm64.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 532826f3712b607 ("arm64: Mirror arm for unimplemented compat
> > > syscalls")
> > > Signed-off-by: Pi-Hsun Shih <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > index 8f3371415642ad..95fd8c7ec8a171 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c
> > > @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ asmlinkage long do_ni_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs)
> > > {
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > long ret;
> > > - if (is_compat_task()) {
> > > + if (is_compat_task() && regs->regs[7] >= __ARM_NR_COMPAT_BASE) {
> >
> > compat_arm_syscall() ignores all bits r7 except for bits [15:0].
> >
> > So, doesn't this mean that 0xf0000, 0x100000, 0x110000 will all do the
> > same thing now? (Previously to your patch, 0xe0000, 0xd0000 etc. would
> > also match in this code I've misunderstood something.)
> >
> > The gating check in arch/arm/kernel/trapc.s:arm_syscall() is
> >
> > if ((no >> 16) != (__ARM_NR_BASE>> 16))
> >
> > I would expect that arm64 needs a similar check somewhere. Is the check
> > already present? I may have missed it.
>
> When not using OABI, __ARM_NR_BASE is zero, so I think the 32-bit semantics
> for non-OABI are:
>
> 0 - 399 : Invoke syscall via syscall table
> 400 - 0xeffff : -ENOSYS (to be allocated in future)
> 0xf0000 - 0xfffff : Private syscall or -ENOSYS if not allocated
> > 0xfffff : SIGILL
Bah, 0xfffff should be 0xf07ff in the last two lines here.
Will
