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  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:   Fri, 27 Jan 2017 13:48:30 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Mike Frysinger <vapier@...omium.org>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
        James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
        Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Subject: Re: seccomp: dump core when using SECCOMP_RET_KILL

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of CRIU tests fails with this patch:
>> https://github.com/xemul/criu/blob/master/test/zdtm/static/seccomp_filter_tsync.c
>>
>> Before this patch only a thread which called a "wrong" syscall is killed.
>> Now a whole process is killed if one of threads called a "wrong" syscall.
>
> Oh ew. I wonder what is causing this? In other do_coredump() callers,
> they explicitly call do_group_exit(). Hmmm

We need to find a way to fix this or remove the coredump change from
-next. We have a few things that have come up recently (coincident
with the coredump change):

- some folks would like seccomp kills to kill the entire process not
just the thread
- on a full-process kill, there needs to be a way to get a coredump
- on a kill, it would be nice to have reliable logging

Getting a coredump requires a full-process kill. It is possible to do
this already with RET_TRAP and just not catch the SIGSYS. However,
this isn't sufficient if you want to be _sure_ the entire process gets
killed since RET_TRAP depends on cooperation from the process.

Getting reliable logging out of seccomp for non-RET_KILL is
non-trivial because syscall-audit doesn't track forks.

The RET_* values are part of the UAPI, so changing or adding to them
requires care.

Right now we have very little room in the RET_* values (the lower
bytes are for the RET_DATA which is ignored for RET_KILL and the
semantics of changing that is very difficult):

#define SECCOMP_RET_KILL        0x00000000U /* kill the task immediately */
#define SECCOMP_RET_TRAP        0x00030000U /* disallow and force a SIGSYS */

Killing the entire process is more aggressive than RET_KILL currently,
so the question becomes, should we upgrade RET_KILL to
RET_KILL_PROCESS and add RET_KILL_THREAD? Are there people that WANT
only a thread to be killed? Andrei, does CRIU depend on this behavior,
or is it "just" a regression test detail?

We can add two more RET_* values... however, it seems like only thread
vs process is a filter-level concept. Whether or not to dump core
seems to be an external aspect of the process (think ulimit -c), and
logging seems to be a system-level thing.

For logging, I think audit needs to grow fork-tracking, and/or have a
new "is under seccomp" test that can be exposed to auditctl. Then the
system owner can issue either "tell me about all seccomp kills" or
"tell me about seccomp kills in this process tree". As such, I don't
think we should be making filter-level changes to deal with the needs
of seccomp logging.

For coredumping, I remain a bit stumped. Strictly speaking,
coredumping exposes more kernel code to the running process, so it is
"less safe" than the instant kill RET_KILL performs. Though the
current patch is actually more aggressive in that it causes the entire
process to die as part of the coredumping.

I think that if there is a move to make RET_KILL kill the process,
then we can add coredumping. If not, I'm less sure how to proceed...

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Nexus Security

Powered by blists - more mailing lists