linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,seccomp: Add a seccomp fastpath

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 11 Jun 2014 15:32:49 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
	LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,seccomp: Add a seccomp fastpath

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>> On 06/11/2014 03:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>>>> On 06/11/2014 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 13ns is with the simplest nonempty filter.  I hope that empty filters
>>>>> don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why wouldn't they?
>>>
>>> Is it permissible to fall off the end of a BPF program?  I'm getting
>>> EINVAL trying to install an actual empty filter.  The filter I tested
>>> with was:
>>>
>>
>> What I meant was that there has to be a well-defined behavior for the
>> program falling off the end anyway, and that that should be preserved.
>>
>> I guess it is possible to require that all code paths must provably
>> reach a termination point.
>>
>
> Dunno.  I haven't ever touched any of the actual BPF code.  This whole
> patchset only changes the code that invokes the BPF evaluator.

Yes, this is how BPF works: runs to the end or exit early. With
seccomp BPF specifically, the return value defaults to kill the
process. If a filter was missing (NULL), or empty, or didn't
explicitly return with a new value, the default (kill) should be
taken.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/