Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:38:42 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
        Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@....ntt.co.jp>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] seccomp: add support for passing fds via
 USER_NOTIF

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 07:19:56AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:55 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 04:52:38PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws> 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?
> > 
> > I'm just implementing this now, and there's one question: when do we
> > actually do the fd install? Should we do it when the user calls
> > SECCOMP_NOTIF_PUT_FD, or when the actual response is sent? It feels
> > like we should do it when the response is sent, instead of doing it
> > right when SECCOMP_NOTIF_PUT_FD is called, since if there's a
> > subsequent signal and the tracer decides to discard the response,
> > we'll have to implement some delete mechanism to delete the fd, but it
> > would have already been visible to the process, etc. So I'll go
> > forward with this unless there are strong objections, but I thought
> > I'd point it out just to avoid another round trip.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Can you do that non-racily?  That is, you need to commit to an fd *number* right away, but what if another thread uses the number before you actually install the fd?

I was thinking we could just do an __alloc_fd() and then do the
fd_install() when the response is sent or clean up the case that the
listener or task dies. I haven't actually tried to run the code yet,
so it's possible the locking won't work :)

> Do we really allow non-“kill” signals to interrupt the whole process?  It might be the case that we don’t really need to clean up from signals if there’s a guarantee that the thread dies.

Yes, we do, because of this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/15/1122

I could change that to just be a killable wait, though; I don't have
strong opinions about it and several people have commented that the
code is kind of weird.

Tycho

Powered by blists - more mailing lists