linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] sh: Add SECCOMP

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200903061718.GZ3265@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date:   Thu, 3 Sep 2020 02:17:19 -0400
From:   Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To:     John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
Cc:     Michael Karcher <kernel@...rcher.dialup.fu-berlin.de>,
        linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] sh: Add SECCOMP_FILTER

On Thu, Sep 03, 2020 at 08:04:44AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 9/3/20 7:46 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > 
> > OK, I think I have an explanation for the mechanism of the bug, and it
> > really is a combination of the 2008 bug (confusion of r0 vs r3) and
> > the SECCOMP_FILTER commit. When the syscall_trace_entry code path is
> > in use, a syscall with argument 5 having value -1 causes
> > do_syscall_trace_enter to return -1 (because it returns regs[0], which
> > contains argument 5), which the change in entry-common.S interprets as
> > a sign to skip the syscall and jump to syscall_exit, and things blow
> > up from there. In particular, SYS_mmap2 is almost always called with
> > -1 as the 5th argument (fd), and this is even more common on nommu
> > where SYS_brk does not work.
> > 
> > I'll follow up with a new proposed patch.
> 
> I'm not sure whether we need another revision of your first patch. Your
> previous analysis was at least right regarding the tests 51 and 58
> but those have been fixed now.
> 
> But there were two other tests failing, weren't there?
> 
> I have to recheck later, I just got up (it's 8 AM CEST).

The first patch was surely not right; setting syscall_nr to -1 and
letting it -ENOSYS clobbered any return value set by the seccomp
filters. The one I've sent now should be right. I'll follow up after
testing with libseccomp test cases.

Rich