Commit 52449c1
riscv: entry: set a0 = -ENOSYS only when syscall != -1
When we test seccomp with 6.4 kernel, we found errno has wrong value.
If we deny NETLINK_AUDIT with EAFNOSUPPORT, after f0bddf5, we will
get ENOSYS instead. We got same result with commit 9c2598d ("riscv:
entry: Save a0 prior syscall_enter_from_user_mode()").
After analysing code, we think that regs->a0 = -ENOSYS should only be
executed when syscall != -1. In __seccomp_filter, when seccomp rejected
this syscall with specified errno, they will set a0 to return number as
syscall ABI, and then return -1. This return number is finally pass as
return number of syscall_enter_from_user_mode, and then is compared with
NR_syscalls after converted to ulong (so it will be ULONG_MAX). The
condition syscall < NR_syscalls will always be false, so regs->a0 = -ENOSYS
is always executed. It covered a0 set by seccomp, so we always get
ENOSYS when match seccomp RET_ERRNO rule.
Fixes: f0bddf5 ("riscv: entry: Convert to generic entry")
Reported-by: Felix Yan <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Ruizhe Pan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ruizhe Pan <[email protected]>
Co-developed-by: Shiqi Zhang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shiqi Zhang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Celeste Liu <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Felix Yan <[email protected]>
Tested-by: Emil Renner Berthing <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Björn Töpel <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Guo Ren <[email protected]>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
Signed-off-by: Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]>1 parent 7e38115 commit 52449c1
1 file changed
Lines changed: 3 additions & 3 deletions
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
297 | 297 | | |
298 | 298 | | |
299 | 299 | | |
300 | | - | |
| 300 | + | |
301 | 301 | | |
302 | 302 | | |
303 | 303 | | |
| |||
306 | 306 | | |
307 | 307 | | |
308 | 308 | | |
309 | | - | |
| 309 | + | |
310 | 310 | | |
311 | | - | |
| 311 | + | |
312 | 312 | | |
313 | 313 | | |
314 | 314 | | |
| |||
0 commit comments