[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVJ1qwBwiB=abCa1G3bf_dqyQroYFLvuZt6WPQsYmJvqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 17:44:06 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program
On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Tycho Andersen
<tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:44:24PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Tycho Andersen
>> <tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's a thought,
>> >
>> > The set I'm currently proposing effectively separates the ref-counting
>> > of the struct seccomp_filter from the struct bpf_prog (by necessity,
>> > since we're referring to filters from fds). What if we went a little
>> > futher, and made a copy of each seccomp_filter on fork(), keeping it
>> > pointed at the same bpf_prog but adding some metadata about how it was
>> > inherited (tsk->seccomp.filter->inheritence_count++ perhaps). This
>> > would still require this change:
>>
>> Won't that break the tsync mechanism?
>
> We'll need the change I posted (is_ancestor comparing the underlying
> bpf_prog instead of the seccomp_filter), but then I think it'll work.
> I guess we'll need to do some more bookkeeping when we install filters
> via TSYNC since each thread would need its own seccomp_filter, and
> we'd also have to decide whether a filter installed via TSYNC was
> inherited or not.
>
> Am I missing something?
Yes. I don't think that:
int fd = [create an ebpf fd];
if (fork()) {
/* Process A */
seccomp(attach fd);
...
} else {
/* Process B */
seccomp(attach fd);
...
}
should result in processes A and B being considered to have the same
seccomp_filter state. In particular, I eventually want to make the
seccomp_filter state be considerably more interesting than just the
bpf program.
IOW I really do think that seccomp_filter should have identity.
There's another severe problem, I think. Suppose that ebpf1 and ebpf2
are ebpf fds. If processes C and D start out with no filters at all,
C attaches ebpf1 and ebpf2, and D attaches just ebpf2, then C and D
are definitely *not* in the same state, and neither is an ancestor of
the other.
--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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists