On uClibc up to at least v1.0.32, syscall() for x86_64 is defined in
libc/sysdeps/linux/x86_64/syscall.S as
syscall:
movq %rdi, %rax /* Syscall number -> rax. */
movq %rsi, %rdi /* shift arg1 - arg5. */
movq %rdx, %rsi
movq %rcx, %rdx
movq %r8, %r10
movq %r9, %r8
movq 8(%rsp),%r9 /* arg6 is on the stack. */
syscall /* Do the system call. */
cmpq $-4095, %rax /* Check %rax for error. */
jae __syscall_error /* Branch forward if it failed. */
ret /* Return to caller. */
And __syscall_error is defined in
libc/sysdeps/linux/x86_64/__syscall_error.c as
int __syscall_error(void) attribute_hidden;
int __syscall_error(void)
{
register int err_no __asm__ ("%rcx");
__asm__ ("mov %rax, %rcx\n\t"
"neg %rcx");
__set_errno(err_no);
return -1;
}
Notice that __syscall_error returns -1 as a 32-bit int in %rax, a 64-bit
register i.e. 0x00000000ffffffff (decimal 4294967295). When this value
is compared to -1 in _sys_chk_seccomp_flag_kernel() the result is false,
leading the function to always return 0.
Prevent the error by coercing the return value of syscall() to int in a
temporary variable before comparing it to -1. We could use just an (int)
cast but the variable makes the code more readable and the machine code
generated by the compiler is the same in both cases.
All other syscall() invocations were inspected and they either already
coerce the result to int or do not compare it to -1.
The same problem probably occurs on other 64-bit systems but so far only
x86_64 was tested.
A bug report is being submitted to uClibc.
Upstream status: https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/175
Signed-off-by: Carlos Santos <unixmania@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Arnout Vandecappelle (Essensium/Mind) <arnout@mind.be>
440c7a9d9e