linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests/seccomp: Test kernel catches garbage on SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMp4zn_39bsyZo6BeZ6b+c_EeAHdWmqcJus6qD2xYp84cEcZaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 29 Dec 2019 15:42:17 -0800
From:   Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
To:     Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests/seccomp: Test kernel catches garbage on SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:43 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:06:25AM -0800, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 12:14 PM Christian Brauner
> > <christian.brauner@...ntu.com> wrote:
> > > Does that even work if no dup() syscall has been made and trapped?
> > Yes, the first check that occurs is the check which checks if
> > seccom_notif has been
> > zeroed out. This happens before any of the other work.
>
> Ah, then sure I don't mind doing it this way. Though plumbing it
> directly into TEST(user_notification_basic) like I did below seems
> cleaner to me.
>
> >
> > > This looks like it would give you ENOENT...
> > This ioctl is a blocking ioctl. It'll block until there is a wakeup.
> > In this case, the wakeup
> > will never come, but that doesn't mean we get an ENOENT.
>
> Yeah, but that wold mean the test will hang weirdly if it bypasses the
> check. Sure it'll timeout but meh. I think I would prefer to have this
> done as part of the basic test where we know that there is an event but
> _shrug_.
>
> Christian

My one worry about this is that the behaviour should be if the input
(seccomp_notif) is invalid, it should immediately bail out, whether
or not there is an event waiting. If we add it to basic_test, then
it would hide the erroneous behaviour if bailout isn't immediate.

I'm not sure if that's a worry or not.