| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 13:09:41 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
>>>> On 01/13/2014 12:30 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>>>>> Applying restrictive seccomp filter programs to large or diverse
>>>>> codebases often requires handling threads which may be started early in
>>>>> the process lifetime (e.g., by code that is linked in). While it is
>>>>> possible to apply permissive programs prior to process start up, it is
>>>>> difficult to further restrict the kernel ABI to those threads after that
>>>>> point.
>>>>>
>>>>> This change adds a new seccomp "extension" for synchronizing thread
>>>>> group seccomp filters and a prctl() for accessing that functionality.
>>>>> The need for the added prctl() is due to the lack of reserved arguments
>>>>> in PR_SET_SECCOMP.
>>>>>
>>>>> When prctl(PR_SECCOMP_EXT, SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC, 0, 0) is called, it
>>>>> will attempt to synchronize all threads in current's threadgroup to its
>>>>> seccomp filter program. This is possible iff all threads are using a
>>>>> filter that is an ancestor to the filter current is attempting to
>>>>> synchronize to. NULL filters (where the task is running as
>>>>> SECCOMP_MODE_NONE) are also treated as ancestors allowing threads to be
>>>>> transitioned into SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER. On success, 0 is returned. On
>>>>> failure, the pid of one of the failing threads will be returned.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suggested-by: Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> include/linux/seccomp.h | 7 +++
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/prctl.h | 6 ++
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h | 6 ++
>>>>> kernel/seccomp.c | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> kernel/sys.c | 3 +
>>>>> 5 files changed, 150 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> index 85c0895..3163db6 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ static inline int seccomp_mode(struct seccomp *s)
>>>>> extern void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>>>> extern void get_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>>>> extern u32 seccomp_bpf_load(int off);
>>>>> +extern long prctl_seccomp_ext(unsigned long, unsigned long,
>>>>> + unsigned long, unsigned long);
>>>>> #else /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER */
>>>>> static inline void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -86,5 +88,10 @@ static inline void get_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>>>> {
>>>>> return;
>>>>> }
>>>>> +static inline long prctl_seccomp_ext(unsigned long arg2, unsigned long arg3,
>>>>> + unsigned long arg4, unsigned long arg5)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER */
>>>>> #endif /* _LINUX_SECCOMP_H */
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
>>>>> index 289760f..5dcd5d3 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/prctl.h
>>>>> @@ -149,4 +149,10 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> #define PR_GET_TID_ADDRESS 40
>>>>>
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Access seccomp extensions
>>>>> + * See Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt for more details.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define PR_SECCOMP_EXT 41
>>>>> +
>>>>> #endif /* _LINUX_PRCTL_H */
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> index ac2dc9f..49b5279 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>>> @@ -10,6 +10,12 @@
>>>>> #define SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT 1 /* uses hard-coded filter. */
>>>>> #define SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER 2 /* uses user-supplied filter. */
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* Valid extension types as arg2 for prctl(PR_SECCOMP_EXT) */
>>>>> +#define SECCOMP_EXT_ACT 1
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/* Valid extension actions as arg3 to prctl(PR_SECCOMP_EXT, SECCOMP_EXT_ACT) */
>>>>> +#define SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC 1 /* attempt to synchronize thread filters */
>>>>> +
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * All BPF programs must return a 32-bit value.
>>>>> * The bottom 16-bits are for optional return data.
>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>>> index 71512e4..8a0de7b 100644
>>>>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
>>>>> #include <asm/syscall.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/filter.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/pid.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/ptrace.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/security.h>
>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>> @@ -220,6 +221,108 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(int syscall)
>>>>> return ret;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> +/* Returns 1 if the candidate is an ancestor. */
>>>>> +static int is_ancestor(struct seccomp_filter *candidate,
>>>>> + struct seccomp_filter *child)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + /* NULL is the root ancestor. */
>>>>> + if (candidate == NULL)
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> + for (; child; child = child->prev)
>>>>> + if (child == candidate)
>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +/**
>>>>> + * seccomp_sync_threads: sets all threads to use current's filter
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Returns 0 on success or the pid of a thread which was either not
>>>>> + * in the correct seccomp mode or it did not have an ancestral
>>>>> + * seccomp filter. current must be in seccomp.mode=2 already.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +static pid_t seccomp_sync_threads(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
>>>>> + pid_t failed = 0;
>>>>> + thread = caller = current;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + read_lock(&tasklist_lock);
>>>>> + if (thread_group_empty(caller))
>>>>> + goto done;
>>>>> + while_each_thread(caller, thread) {
>>>>> + task_lock(thread);
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * All threads must not be in SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT to
>>>>> + * be eligible for synchronization.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if ((thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ||
>>>>> + thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER) &&
>>>>> + is_ancestor(thread->seccomp.filter,
>>>>> + caller->seccomp.filter)) {
>>>>> + /* Get a task reference for the new leaf node. */
>>>>> + get_seccomp_filter(caller);
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Drop the task reference to the shared ancestor since
>>>>> + * current's path will hold a reference. (This also
>>>>> + * allows a put before the assignment.)
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + put_seccomp_filter(thread);
>>>>> + thread->seccomp.filter = caller->seccomp.filter;
>>>>> + /* Opt the other thread into seccomp if needed.
>>>>> + * As threads are considered to be trust-realm
>>>>> + * equivalent (see ptrace_may_access), it is safe to
>>>>> + * allow one thread to transition the other.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
>>>>> + thread->seccomp.mode = SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER;
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Don't let an unprivileged task work around
>>>>> + * the no_new_privs restriction by creating
>>>>> + * a thread that sets it up, enters seccomp,
>>>>> + * then dies.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (caller->no_new_privs)
>>>>> + thread->no_new_privs = 1;
>>>>> + set_tsk_thread_flag(thread, TIF_SECCOMP);
>>>>
>>>> no_new_privs is a bitfield, and some of the other bits in there look
>>>> like things that might not want to be read and written back from another
>>>> thread.
>>>
>>> Ah :/ Good catch!
>>>
>>>> Would it be too annoying to require that the other threads already have
>>>> no_new_privs set?
>>>
>>> Hrm, it's pretty painful in the edge cases where you don't control the
>>> process initialization which might setup threads you need to ensnare.
>>>
>>> Would it be crazy to do something like below in sched.h?
>>> - unsigned no_new_privs:1;
>>> + unsigned no_new_privs;
>>
>> set_bit, etc. would also work. (Although there isn't a 32-bit set_bit
>> AFAIK, or at least there isn't one that works on 64-bit BE archs.)
>
> I wasn't sure if I could use set_bit() in a way that wouldn't get me
> banned from submitting patches forever :)
You'd at least have to get rid of the bitfield -- set_bit on a
bitfield would be... bad. :)
>
>> Also, is 'unsigned' actually safe for this purpose, on all supported
>> archs/compilers? I'm pretty sure it's okay by C++11 rules, but those
>> don't apply here. Maybe some day the kernel will move to C11 and life
>> will be good.
>>
>>>
>>> It feels like a big hammer though, but it also seems weird to wrap those
>>> bitfields with task_lock. Any suggestions are welcome! I'll think about
>>> this a bit more and see if there is a good way to do this transition
>>> safely and cheaply.
>>
>> Hmm. I bet you could move no_new_privs somewhere else in task_lock
>> where there's a bit free. It could also go in 'struct creds', but I
>> think that's even worse from your perspective.
>>
>> Here's another dumb idea: Add an accessor task_no_new_privs(struct
>> task_struct *) and move no_new_privs into struct seccomp (i.e. make it
>> a bit in the seccomp mode). It kind of sucks on !CONFIG_SECCOMP, but
>> it's free if CONFIG_SECCOMP.
>
> That'd certainly be fine with me. I was considering adding a
> "needs_transition" bit to struct seccomp, but moving nnp there could be tidy.
> I'd need to make sure reading it locklessly still makes sense, but I really
> don't want to put a lock on the syscall path...
You may be able to cheat a bit: I don't think that reading
no_new_privs needs to be fast -- it only matters in a small set of
security-related syscalls and in execve.
Have you considered RCU for the seccomp state?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists