linux-kernel - Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF

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]

Message-ID: <CAObL_7E1gtDF8Bjb9vmFFkVFmxWbx4DrgGU0QPJEd6KXgS7U8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:01:09 -0800
From:	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	keescook@...omium.org, john.johansen@...onical.com,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	pmoore@...hat.com, eparis@...hat.com, djm@...drot.org,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, segoon@...nwall.com,
	rostedt@...dmis.org, jmorris@...ei.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
	avi@...hat.com, penberg@...helsinki.fi, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, khilman@...com,
	borislav.petkov@....com, amwang@...hat.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, gregkh@...e.de, dhowells@...hat.com,
	daniel.lezcano@...e.fr, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, olofj@...omium.org,
	mhalcrow@...gle.com, dlaor@...hat.com,
	Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...omium.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, indan@....nu
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 01/16, Will Drewry wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Yes, thanks, I forgot about compat tasks again. But this is easy, just
>>> > we need regs_64_to_32().
>>>
>>> Yup - we could make the assumption that is_compat_task is always
>>> 32-bit and the pt_regs is always 64-bit, then copy_and_truncate with
>>> regs_64_to_32.  Seems kinda wonky though :/
>>
>> much simpler/faster than what regset does to create the artificial
>> user_regs_struct32.
>
> True, I could collapse pt_regs to looks like the exported ABI pt_regs.
>  Then only compat processes would get the copy overhead.  That could
> be tidy and not break ABI.  It would mean that I have to assume that
> if unsigned long == 64-bit and is_compat_task(), then the task is
> 32-bit.  Do you think if we ever add a crazy 128-bit "supercomputer"
> arch that we will add a is_compat64_task() so that I could properly
> collapse? :)
>
> I like this idea!

FWIW, it's possible for a task to execute in 32-bit mode when
!is_compat_task or in 64-bit mode when is_compat_task.  From earlier
in the thread, I think you were planning to block the wrong-bitness
syscall entries, but it's worth double-checking that you don't open up
a hole when a compat task issues the 64-bit syscall instruction.

(is_compat_task says whether the executable was marked as 32-bit.  The
actual execution mode is determined by the cs register, which the user
can control.  See the user_64bit_mode function in
arch/asm/x86/ptrace.h.  But maybe it would make more sense to have a
separate 32-bit and 64-bit BPF program and select which one to use
based on the entry point.)

--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/