linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] seccomp: add ptrace options for suspend/resume

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: <CAGXu5jLM8BSwXu8XU9d4QU7mQ=oOh=dYKY3_DcBa_zjrGpK7dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:10:43 -0700
From:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] seccomp: add ptrace options for suspend/resume

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/04, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Tycho Andersen
>> > @@ -556,6 +557,11 @@ static int ptrace_setoptions(struct task_struct *child, unsigned long data)
>> >         if (data & ~(unsigned long)PTRACE_O_MASK)
>> >                 return -EINVAL;
>> >
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
>> > +       if (data & PTRACE_O_SUSPEND_SECCOMP && !may_suspend_seccomp())
>> > +               return -EPERM;
>> > +#endif
>>
>> I'd like to avoid seeing any #ifdefs added to the .c files. Using a
>> static inline for may_suspend_seccomp() should cause this statement to
>> be eliminated by the compiler.
>
> Agreed, me too, but see below.
>
>> > @@ -590,6 +590,11 @@ void secure_computing_strict(int this_syscall)
>> >  {
>> >         int mode = current->seccomp.mode;
>> >
>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
>> > +       if (unlikely(current->ptrace & PT_SUSPEND_SECCOMP))
>> > +               return;
>> > +#endif
>>
>> Could PT_SUSPEND_SECCOMP be defined to "0" with not
>> CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE? Then this wouldn't need ifdefs, and should
>> be similarly eliminated by the compiler.
>
> Yes, but this way we add another ugly ifdef into .h, and if you read
> this code it is not clear that this check should be eliminated by gcc.
>
> I'd suggest
>
>         if (config_enabled(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE) &&
>             unlikely(current->ptrace & PT_SUSPEND_SECCOMP))
>                 return;

Ah! Yes, that makes things nicer.

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/