linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add 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]

Date:	Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:25:33 -0500
From:	Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Kees Cook <kees@...ntu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
	davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
	oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
	mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu,
	serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
	indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
	coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 10:55 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com> wrote:

> You mean as used in audit_log_exit() ? It looks like that depends on a
> lot of state cached in __audit_syscall_entry() and finally triggered
> in __audit_syscall_exit() (and ..._free()). I don't think this is
> really want seccomp wants to be involved in.
> 
> By CONFIG_AUDITSC, you mean CONFIG_AUDITSYSCALL? Without that set,
> audit_seccomp is a no-op.
> 
> The reason compat needs to be reported (or rather, arch) is because
> just reporting syscall is ambiguous. It either needs arch or compat to
> distinguish it.

Yes, that is what I mean and you are right.  You shouldn't push the
syscall in this record either.  If !audit_dummy_context() you are
already going to get arch, syscall, and a0-a4 in the associated audit
record.  Please do not duplicate that info.

It might make sense to have a separate audit_seccomp() path when
audit_dummy_context() which includes arch, syscall, and a0-a4.

It is my fault (85e7bac3) that we have syscall at all, but I'm on a new
crusade to remove audit record duplication.  So I'd happily see a patch
in this series that removes that instead of adds to it.

-Eric

--
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/