[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200522200921.GB25319@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 20:09:22 +0000
From: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: seccomp feature development
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:04:57PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is my attempt at a brain-dump on my plans for nearish-term seccomp
> features. Welcome to my TED talk... ;)
>
> These are the things I've been thinking about:
>
> - fd passing
> - deep argument inspection
> - changing structure sizes
> - syscall bitmasks
>
What's your take on enabling multiple filters with listeners being attached,
so that different seccomp interceptors can operate together. I'm wondering
how this would work.
One idea that I had is adding a new flag to the seccomp filter
installation -- something like NEXT_FILTER_COMPATIBLE. When a filter is
installed with a listener, it will check if all previous filters were
instaled with NEXT_FILTER_COMPATIBLE.
If the call is intercepted by a listener, and the return is overriden,
then it short-circuits, and the subsequent filters are not evaluated.
On the other hand, if the continue response is send, then the
subsequent filters are called.
What do you think?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists