[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181127232753.GA18755@altlinux.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 02:27:53 +0300
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Elvira Khabirova <lineprinter@...linux.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Eugene Syromyatnikov <esyr@...hat.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
strace-devel@...ts.strace.io, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RESEND v3 3/3] ptrace: add PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP
support to PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 01:31:17PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 11/27, Elvira Khabirova wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 15:35:24 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 11/25, Elvira Khabirova wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Extend PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO to support PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP stops.
> > > > The information returned is the same as for syscall-enter-stops.
> > >
> > > Oh, this is not nice ;) there must be a better option, I hope... Plus
> > >
> > >
> > > Can't ptrace_get_syscall() check
> > >
> > > child->exit_code == (PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP << 8) | SIGTRAP;
> > >
> > > to detect the PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP case?
> >
> > Nope; looks like exit_code is zeroed after wait().
>
> Yes, thanks for correcting me,
>
> but we can use child->last_siginfo->si_code.
Yes, this approach works, thanks!
> Just like ptrace_request(PTRACE_LISTEN)
> does but you can do this lockless (no need to lock_task_sighand()).
Why this can be done lockless? All other places in that file do
the locking, so I'd rather add a comment in the new code.
> And if we require that the user of ptrace_get_syscall() should also use TRACESYSGOOD
> then ptrace_get_syscall() can probably do something like
>
> int entry;
>
> if (!child->last_siginfo)
> return -EINVAL;
> else if (child->last_siginfo->si_code == (PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP << 8) | SIGTRAP)
> entry = 1;
> else if (child->last_siginfo->si_code == SIGTRAP | 0x80)
> entry = child->ptrace_message == PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY;
> else
> return -EINVAL;
>
> and this way PTRACE_EVENTMSG_SYSCALL_ENTRY/EXIT can't confict with seccomp or
> anything else.
>
> No?
>
> Of course, debugger can do PTRACE_SETSIGINFO and confuse itself but probably we
> do not care?
The only potential issue I could think of is whether PTRACE_SETSIGINFO
could be used this way to cause an information leak by making
PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO access some unrelated data.
--
ldv
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (802 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists