linux-kernel - Re: [libseccomp-discuss] ARM audit, seccomp, etc are broken wrt OABI syscalls

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, 6 Nov 2013 22:17:46 +0000
From:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	libseccomp-discuss@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [libseccomp-discuss] ARM audit, seccomp, etc are broken wrt
	OABI syscalls

On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:26:52PM -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:32:31AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 14:36 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> > 1. Set a different audit arch for OABI syscalls (e.g.
> >>> > AUDIT_ARCH_ARMOABI).  That is, treat OABI syscall entries the same way
> >>> > that x86_64 treats int 80.
> >>>
> >>> As the audit maintainer, I like #1.  It might break ABI, but the ABI is
> >>> flat wrong now and not maintainable...
> >>
> >> If you read the whole thread, you will see that this corner case is just
> >> not worth the effort to support.  Audit may as well be disabled by
> >> kernel config if any OABI support is enabled.
> >
> > This might be the best move for seccomp too (as Kees suggested).  I'd
> > love to have audit arch visibility, but it's not clear that it's worth
> > any sort of larger changes ...
> >
> > ... like adding a task_thread_info.compat flag that bubbles up to
> > syscall_get_arch(), or if we assume consumers of syscall_get_nr() are
> > broken today (I haven't checked), then it would be possible to at
> > least re-add the 0x900000 bits, if compat, before handing back the
> > system call number but leave the audit arch pieces alone.
> 
> How does this look, for the seccomp part?

Looks correct, thanks.
--
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/