linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH seccomp 1/2] seccomp/cache: Add "emulator" to check if filter is arg-dependent

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]

Date:   Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:47:40 -0500
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH seccomp 1/2] seccomp/cache: Add "emulator" to check if
 filter is arg-dependent

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 7:26 PM Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> > In the initial RFC patch I only added to x86. I could add it to any
> > arch that has seccomp filters. Though, I'm wondering, why is SECCOMP
> > in the arch-specific Kconfigs?
>
> Ugh, yeah, the existing code is already bad... as far as I can tell,
> SECCOMP shouldn't be there, and instead the arch-specific Kconfig
> should define something like HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP and then arch/Kconfig
> would define SECCOMP and let it depend on HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP. It's
> really gross how the SECCOMP config description has been copypasted
> into a dozen different Kconfig files; and looking around a bit, you
> can actually see that e.g. s390 has an utterly outdated help text
> which still claims that seccomp is controlled via the ancient
> "/proc/<pid>/seccomp". I guess this very nicely illustrates why
> putting such options into arch-specific Kconfig is a bad idea. :P

Ah, time to fix this then.

YiFei Zhu