linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] seccomp: add support for passing fds via USER

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:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 19:42:56 +1000
From:   Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] seccomp: add support for passing fds via
 USER_NOTIF

On 2018-09-12, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > The idea here is that the userspace handler should be able to pass an fd
> > back to the trapped task, for example so it can be returned from socket().
> >
> > I've proposed one API here, but I'm open to other options. In particular,
> > this only lets you return an fd from a syscall, which may not be enough in
> > all cases. For example, if an fd is written to an output parameter instead
> > of returned, the current API can't handle this. Another case is that
> > netlink takes as input fds sometimes (IFLA_NET_NS_FD, e.g.). If netlink
> > ever decides to install an fd and output it, we wouldn't be able to handle
> > this either.
> 
> An alternative could be to have an API (an ioctl on the listener,
> perhaps) that just copies an fd into the tracee.  There would be the
> obvious set of options: do we replace an existing fd or allocate a new
> one, and is it CLOEXEC.  Then the tracer could add an fd and then
> return it just like it's a regular number.
> 
> I feel like this would be more flexible and conceptually simpler, but
> maybe a little slower for the common cases.  What do you think?

When we first discussed this I sent a (probably somewhat broken) patch
for "dup4" which would let you inject a file descriptor into a different
process -- I still think that having a method for injecting a file
descriptor without needing ptrace (and SCM_RIGHTS) shenanigans would be
generally useful. (With "dup4" you have a more obvious API for flags and
whether you allocate a new fd or use a specific one.)

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)