[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <19EF7AC8-609A-4E86-B45E-98DFE965DAAB@amacapital.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 13:40:13 -0400
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
keescook@...omium.org
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [5.2 REGRESSION] Generic vDSO breaks seccomp-enabled userspace on i386
> On Jul 19, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> The generic vDSO implementation, starting with commit
>
> 7ac870747988 ("x86/vdso: Switch to generic vDSO implementation")
>
> breaks seccomp-enabled userspace on 32-bit x86 (i386) kernels. Prior to
> the generic implementation, the x86 vDSO used identical code for both
> x86_64 and i386 kernels, which worked because it did all calcuations using
> structs with naturally sized variables, i.e. didn't use __kernel_timespec.
>
> The generic vDSO does its internal calculations using __kernel_timespec,
> which in turn requires the i386 fallback syscall to use the 64-bit
> variation, __NR_clock_gettime64.
This is basically doomed to break eventually, right?
I’ve occasionally considered adding a concept of “seccomp aliases”. The idea is that, if a filter returns anything other than ALLOW, we re-run it with a different nr that we dig out it a small list of such cases. This would be limited to cases where the new syscall does the same thing with the same arguments.
I want this for restart_syscall: I want to renumber it.
Kees?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists