linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8] seccomp, ptrace: add support for dumping seccomp filters

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, 21 Oct 2015 22:18:20 +0200
From:	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>
CC:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8] seccomp, ptrace: add support for dumping seccomp filters

On 10/21/2015 10:12 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Tycho Andersen
> <tycho.andersen@...onical.com> wrote:
>> Hi Oleg,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:51:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 10/20, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kees, Oleg,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:20:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, you can't do copy_to_user() from atomic context. You need to pin this
>>>>> filter, drop the lock/irq, then copy_to_user().
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a patch which addresses this.
>>>
>>> Looks good to me, feel free to add my reviewed-by.
>>>
>>>
>>> a couple of questions, I am just curious...
>>>
>>>> +long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
>>>> +                   void __user *data)
>>>> +{
>>>> +   struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>>>> +   struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
>>>> +   long ret;
>>>> +   unsigned long count = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +   if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
>>>> +       current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
>>>> +           return -EACCES;
>>>> +   }
>>>> +
>>>> +   spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>>>> +   if (task->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER) {
>>>> +           ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> +           goto out;
>>>> +   }
>>>> +
>>>> +   filter = task->seccomp.filter;
>>>> +   while (filter) {
>>>> +           filter = filter->prev;
>>>> +           count++;
>>>> +   }
>>>> +
>>>> +   if (filter_off >= count) {
>>>> +           ret = -ENOENT;
>>>> +           goto out;
>>>> +   }
>>>> +   count -= filter_off;
>>>> +
>>>> +   filter = task->seccomp.filter;
>>>> +   while (filter && count > 1) {
>>>> +           filter = filter->prev;
>>>> +           count--;
>>>> +   }
>>>> +
>>>> +   if (WARN_ON(count != 1)) {
>>>> +           /* The filter tree shouldn't shrink while we're using it. */
>>>> +           ret = -ENOENT;
>>>
>>> Yes. but this looks a bit confusing. If we want this WARN_ON() check
>>> because we are paranoid, then we should do
>>>
>>>        WARN_ON(count != 1 || filter);
>>
>> I guess you mean !filter here? We want filter to be non-null, because
>> we use it later.
>>
>>> And "while we're using it" look misleading, we rely on ->siglock.
>>>
>>> Plus if we could be shrinked the additional check can't help anyway,
>>> we can used the free filter. So I don't really understand this check
>>> and "filter != NULL" in the previous "while (filter && count > 1)".
>>> Nevermind...
>>
>> Just paranoia. You're right that we could get rid of WARN_ON and the
>> null check. I can send an updated patch to drop these bits if
>> necessary. Kees?
>
> I like being really paranoid when dealing with the filters. Let's keep
> the WARN_ON (with the "|| !filter" added) but maybe wrap it in
> "unlikely"?

Btw, the conditions inside the WARN_ON() macro would already resolve
to unlikely().

Best,
Daniel
--
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/