[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVby=aKDQ-W5nuTgGi8kmhAB-N3F1Rm1TNiyAKw0WVZZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 10:52:59 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] seccomp: add a way to access filters via bpf fds
On Sep 11, 2015 9:44 AM, "Tycho Andersen" <tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:20:55AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sep 10, 2015 5:22 PM, "Tycho Andersen" <tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch adds a way for a process that is "real root" to access the
> > > seccomp filters of another process. The process first does a
> > > PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER_FD to get an fd with that process' seccomp filter
> > > attached, and then iterates on this with PTRACE_SECCOMP_NEXT_FILTER using
> > > bpf(BPF_PROG_DUMP) to dump the actual program at each step.
> > >
> >
> > > +
> > > + fd = bpf_new_fd(filter->prog, O_RDONLY);
> > > + if (fd > 0)
> > > + atomic_inc(&filter->prog->aux->refcnt);
> >
> > Why isn't this folded into bpf_new_fd?
>
> No reason it can't be as far as I can see. I'll make the change for
> the next version.
>
> > > +
> > > + return fd;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +long seccomp_next_filter(struct task_struct *child, u32 fd)
> > > +{
> > > + struct seccomp_filter *cur;
> > > + struct bpf_prog *prog;
> > > + long ret = -ESRCH;
> > > +
> > > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > > + return -EACCES;
> > > +
> > > + if (child->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER)
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + prog = bpf_prog_get(fd);
> > > + if (IS_ERR(prog)) {
> > > + ret = PTR_ERR(prog);
> > > + goto out;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (cur = child->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> > > + if (cur->prog == prog) {
> > > + if (!cur->prev)
> > > + ret = -ENOENT;
> > > + else
> > > + ret = bpf_prog_set(fd, cur->prev->prog);
> >
> > This lets you take an fd pointing to one prog and point it elsewhere.
> > I'm not sure that's a good idea.
>
> That's how the interface was designed (calling ptrace(NEXT_FILTER, fd) and
> then doing bpf(DUMP, fd)). I suppose we could have NEXT_FILTER return
> a new fd instead if that seems better to you.
It'll be slower, but it avoids a weird side effect.
>
> Tycho
--
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