[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202003161423.B51FDA8083@keescook>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 14:23:59 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: allow BPF_MOD ALU instructions
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 04:36:46PM +0000, Anton Protopopov wrote:
> The BPF_MOD ALU instructions could be utilized by seccomp classic BPF filters,
> but were missing from the explicit list of allowed calls since its introduction
> in the original e2cfabdfd075 ("seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF")
> commit. Add support for these instructions by adding them to the allowed list
> in the seccomp_check_filter function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Anton Protopopov <a.s.protopopov@...il.com>
This has been suggested in the past, but was deemed ultimately redundant:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/201908121035.06695C79F@keescook/
Is there a strong reason it's needed?
Thanks!
-Kees
> ---
> kernel/seccomp.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index b6ea3dcb57bf..cae7561b44d4 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -206,6 +206,8 @@ static int seccomp_check_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen)
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_MUL | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_K:
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_DIV | BPF_X:
> + case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_K:
> + case BPF_ALU | BPF_MOD | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_K:
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_AND | BPF_X:
> case BPF_ALU | BPF_OR | BPF_K:
> --
> 2.19.1
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists