linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seccomp: notify user trap about unused filter

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 29 May 2020 09:47:44 +0200
From:   Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
        Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
        Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seccomp: notify user trap about unused filter

On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:11:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:14:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> >   * @usage: reference count to manage the object lifetime.
> >   *         get/put helpers should be used when accessing an instance
> >   *         outside of a lifetime-guarded section.  In general, this
> >   *         is only needed for handling filters shared across tasks.
> > [...]
> > + * @live: Number of tasks that use this filter directly and number
> > + *	  of dependent filters that have a non-zero @live counter.
> > + *	  Altered during fork(), exit(), and filter installation
> > [...]
> >  	refcount_set(&sfilter->usage, 1);
> > +	refcount_set(&sfilter->live, 1);
> 
> I'd like these reference counters to have more descriptive names. "usage"
> by what? "live" from what perspective? At the least, I think we need
> to be explicit in the comment, and at best we should do that and rename
> them to be a bit more clear.

Well the correct way would probably be:
"usage" -> "refs"
"live"  -> "users"

So we'd need a first patch to convert "usage" to "refs" and then
introduce "users".

> 
> A filter's "usage" is incremented for each directly-attached task
> (task::seccomp_data.filter, via fork() or thread_sync), once for the
> dependent filter (filter::prev), and once for an open user_notif file
> (file::private_data). When it reaches zero, there are (should be) no more
> active memory references back to the struct filter and it can be freed.
> 
> A filter's "live" is incremented for each directly-attached task
> (task::seccomp_data.filter, via fork() or thread_sync), and once for
> the dependent filter (filter::prev). When it reaches zero there is no
> way for new tasks to get associated with the filter, but there may still
> be user_notif file::private_data references pointing at the filter.

or - at least briefyl - ptrace or whatever, yes.

> 
> But we're tracking "validity lifetime" (live) and "memory reference
> safety" (usage).
> 
> signal_struct has "sigcnt" and "live". I find "sigcnt" to be an
> unhelpful name too. (And why isn't it refcount_t?)

I think I once looked that up and there was some sort of "not needed, no
gain" style rationale.

> 
> So, perhaps leave "live", but rename "usage" -> "references".

usage -> refs
live  -> users/active

> 
> After looking at these other lifetime management examples in the kernel,
> I'm convinced that tracking these states separately is correct, but I
> remain uncomfortable about task management needing to explicitly make
> two calls to let go of the filter.
> 
> I wonder if release_task() should also detach the filter from the task
> and do a put_seccomp_filter() instead of waiting for task_free(). This
> is supported by the other place where seccomp_filter_release() is
> called:
> 
> > @@ -396,6 +400,7 @@ static inline void seccomp_sync_threads(unsigned long flags)
> >  		 * allows a put before the assignment.)
> >  		*/
> >   		put_seccomp_filter(thread);
> > +		seccomp_filter_release(thread);
> 
> This would also remove the only put_seccomp_filter() call outside of
> seccomp.c, since the free_task() call will be removed now in favor of
> the task_release() call.
> 
> So, is it safe to detach the filter in release_task()? Has dethreading
> happened yet? i.e. can we race TSYNC? -- is there a possible
> inc-from-zero? (Actually, all our refcount_inc()s should be
> refcount_inc_not_zero() just for robustness.) I *think* we can do it
> before the release_thread() call (instead of after cgroup_release()).
> 
> With that, then seccomp_filter_release() could assign the filter to NULL
> and do the clean up:
> 
> void seccomp_filter_release(const struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> 	struct seccomp_filter *orig = READ_ONCE(tsk->seccomp.filter);
> 
> 	smp_store_release(&tsk->seccomp.filter, NULL);
> 	__seccomp_filter_release(orig);
> }
> 
> All other refcounting is then internal to seccomp.c. Which brings me
> back to TSYNC, since we don't want to write NULL to task->seccomp.filter
> during TSYNC. TSYNC can use:
> 
> void __seccomp_filter_release(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> {
> 	while (filter && refcount_dec_and_test(&filter->live)) {
> 		if (waitqueue_active(&filter->wqh))
> 			wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLHUP);
> 		filter = filter->prev;
> 	}
> 	__put_seccomp_filter(filter);
> }
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook