linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] seccomp: Create an action to log before allowing

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:   Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:15:02 -0600
From:   Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-audit@...hat.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] seccomp: Create an action to log before allowing

On 02/10/2017 06:08 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
>> On 02/07/2017 06:33 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> This adds to UAPI, so it'd be good to think for a moment about how
>>> this would work on older kernels: right now, if someone tried to use
>>> this RET_LOG on an old kernel, it'll get treated like RET_KILL. Is
>>> this sane?
>>
>> It is not sane for userspace code to blindly attempt to use a new
>> feature on an old kernel. One of the main motivations of the
>> actions_avail sysctl is to allow userspace to be smart about what the
>> current kernel supports.
> 
> Yeah, agreed. I mean, userspace could also build a little test
> program, toss in RET_LOG, run it and see if it get SIGSYS. But that's
> so much more pain that checking in /proc.
> 
>> I'll be adding logic (requested by Paul) to libseccomp that checks this
>> sysctl when SECOMP_RET_LOG is attempted to be used. Programs that don't
>> use libseccomp will have to do something similar.
> 
> Excellent, I had been meaning to ask if you'd chatted with Paul at
> all, since this is an API addition for libseccomp.

We talked through some of it after the initial PR that I submitted to
libseccomp:

  https://github.com/seccomp/libseccomp/pull/64

I'll be updating that as we get closer to a land-able set of kernel patches.

> Speaking of which, can you CC linux-api@ on the next version too?

Yes, good idea!

Tyler




Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)