linux-kernel - Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values wrong in VM?

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: <CALCETrXP0bH9nhh=aOPsiA-Bs0zNW_0xbXFhvbMPZeDV71VtZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:15:49 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To:	David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>
Cc:	Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [Regression v4.2 ?] 32-bit seccomp-BPF returned errno values
 wrong in VM?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:28 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 08/13/2015 10:30 AM, David Drysdale wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>>
>>> I've got an odd regression with the v4.2 rc kernel, and I wondered if anyone
>>> else could reproduce it.
>>>
>>> The problem occurs with a seccomp-bpf filter program that's set up to return
>>> an errno value -- an errno of 1 is always returned instead of what's in the
>>> filter, plus other oddities (selftest output below).
>>>
>>> The problem seems to need a combination of circumstances to occur:
>>>
>>>  - The seccomp-bpf userspace program needs to be 32-bit, running against a
>>>    64-bit kernel -- I'm testing with seccomp_bpf from
>>>    tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/, built via 'CFLAGS=-m32 make'.
>>
>> Does it work correctly when built as 64-bit program?
>
> Yep, 64-bit works fine (both at v4.2-rc6 and at commit 3f5159).
>
>>>
>>>  - The kernel needs to be running as a VM guest -- it occurs inside my
>>>    VMware Fusion host, but not if I run on bare metal.  Kees tells me he
>>>    cannot repro with a kvm guest though.
>>>
>>> Bisecting indicates that the commit that induces the problem is
>>> 3f5159a9221f19b0, "x86/asm/entry/32: Update -ENOSYS handling to match the
>>> 64-bit logic", included in all the v4.2-rc* candidates.
>>>
>>> Apologies if I've just got something odd with my local setup, but the
>>> bisection was unequivocal enough that I thought it worth reporting...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> seccomp_bpf failure outputs:
>
> [snip]
>
>> End result should be:
>> pt_regs->ax = -E2BIG (via syscall_set_return_value())
>> pt_regs->orig_ax = -1 ("skip syscall")
>> and syscall_trace_enter_phase1() usually returns with 0,
>> meaning "re-execute syscall at once, no phase2 needed".
>>
>> This, in turn, is called from .S files, and when it returns there,
>> execution loops back to syscall dispatch.
>>
>> Because of orig_ax = -1, syscall dispatch should skip calling syscall.
>> So -E2BIG should survive and be returned...
>
> So I was just about to send:
>
>  That makes sense, and given that exactly the same 32-bit binary
>  runs fine on a different machine, there's presumably something up
>  with my local setup.  The failing machine is a VMware guest, but
>  maybe that's not the relevant interaction -- particularly if no-one
>  else can repro.
>
> But then I noticed some odd audit entries in the main log:
>
> Aug 13 16:52:56 ubuntu kernel: [   20.687249] audit: type=1326
> audit(1439481176.034:62): auid=4294967295 uid=1000 gid=1000
> ses=4294967295 pid=2621 comm="secccomp_bpf.ke"
> exe="/home/dmd/secccomp_bpf.kees.m32" sig=9 arch=40000003 syscall=172
> compat=1 ip=0xf773cc90 code=0x0
> Aug 13 16:52:56 ubuntu kernel: [   20.691157] audit: type=1326
> audit(1439481176.038:63): auid=4294967295 uid=1000 gid=1000
> ses=4294967295 pid=2631 comm="secccomp_bpf.ke"
> exe="/home/dmd/secccomp_bpf.kees.m32" sig=31 arch=40000003 syscall=20
> compat=1 ip=0xf773cc90 code=0x10000000
> ...
>
> I didn't think I had any audit stuff turned on, and indeed:
>   # auditctl -l
>   No rules
>
> But as soon as I'd run that auditctl command, the 32-bit
> seccomp_bpf binary started running fine!
>
> So now I'm confused, and I can no longer reproduce the
> problem.  Which probably means this was a false alarm, in
> which case, my apologies.

You might have triggered TIF_AUDIT or whatever it's called, which
causes a whole different path through the asm tangle, so you might
really have a problem.

Try auditctl -a task,never.  If that doesn't change anything, try
rebooting the guest.

--Andy

>
> D.



-- 
Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
--
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/