Date:	Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:08:49 -0500
From:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	kees.cook@...onical.com, eparis@...hat.com, agl@...omium.org,
	mingo@...e.hu, jmorris@...ei.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: [PATCH 5/7] seccomp_filter: Document what seccomp_filter is and how it works.

Adds a text file covering what CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER is, how it is
implemented presently, and what it may be used for.  In addition,
the limitations and caveats of the proposed implementation are
included.

Signed-off-by: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
---
 Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt |   75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt b/Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6a0fd33
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+		Seccomp filtering
+		=================
+
+Introduction
+------------
+
+A large number of system calls are exposed to every userland process
+with many of them going unused for the entire lifetime of the
+application.  As system calls change and mature, bugs are found and
+quashed.  A certain subset of userland applications benefit by having
+a reduce set of available system calls.  The reduced set reduces the
+total kernel surface exposed to the application.  System call filtering
+is meant for use with those applications.
+
+The implementation currently leverages both the existing seccomp
+infrastructure and the kernel tracing infrastructure.  By centralizing
+hooks for attack surface reduction in seccomp, it is possible to assure
+attention to security that is less relevant in normal ftrace scenarios,
+such as time of check, time of use attacks.  However, ftrace provides a
+rich, human-friendly environment for specifying system calls by name and
+expected arguments.  (As such, this requires FTRACE_SYSCALLS.)
+
+
+What it isn't
+-------------
+
+System call filtering isn't a sandbox.  It provides a clearly defined
+mechanism for minimizing the exposed kernel surface.  Beyond that, policy for
+logical behavior and information flow should be managed with an LSM of your
+choosing.
+
+
+Usage
+-----
+
+An additional seccomp mode is exposed through mode '2'.  This mode
+depends on CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER which in turn depends on
+CONFIG_FTRACE_SYSCALLS.
+
+A collection of filters may be supplied via prctl, and the current set of
+filters is exposed in /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter.
+
+For instance,
+  const char filters[] =
+    "sys_read: (fd == 1) || (fd == 2)\n"
+    "sys_write: (fd == 0)\n"
+    "sys_exit: 1\n"
+    "sys_exit_group: 1\n"
+    "on_next_syscall: 1";
+  prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, 2, filters);
+
+This will setup system call filters for read, write, and exit where reading can
+be done only from fds 1 and 2 and writing to fd 0.  The "on_next_syscall" directive tells
+seccomp to not enforce the ruleset until after the next system call is run.  This allows
+for launchers to apply system call filters to a binary before executing it.
+
+Once enabled, the access may only be reduced.  For example, a set of filters may be:
+
+  sys_read: 1
+  sys_write: 1
+  sys_mmap: 1
+  sys_prctl: 1
+
+Then it may call the following to drop mmap access:
+  prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, 2, "sys_mmap: 0");
+
+
+Caveats
+-------
+
+The system call names come from ftrace events.  At present, many system
+calls are not hooked - such as x86's ptregs wrapped system calls.
+
+In addition compat_task()s will not be supported until a sys32s begin
+being hooked.
-- 
1.7.0.4

--
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