linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] kernel: Support TIF_SYSCALL

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]

Message-ID: <202009231349.4A25EAF@keescook>
Date:   Wed, 23 Sep 2020 13:49:54 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, luto@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        willy@...radead.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        shuah@...nel.org, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] kernel: Support TIF_SYSCALL_INTERCEPT flag

On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:18:26PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 04:31:39PM -0400, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
> >> Convert TIF_SECCOMP into a generic TI flag for any syscall interception
> >> work being done by the kernel.  The actual type of work is exposed by a
> >> new flag field outside of thread_info.  This ensures that the
> >> syscall_intercept field is only accessed if struct seccomp has to be
> >> accessed already, such that it doesn't incur in a much higher cost to
> >> the seccomp path.
> >> 
> >> In order to avoid modifying every architecture at once, this patch has a
> >> transition mechanism, such that architectures that define TIF_SECCOMP
> >> continue to work by ignoring the syscall_intercept flag, as long as they
> >> don't support other syscall interception mechanisms like the future
> >> syscall user dispatch.  When migrating TIF_SECCOMP to
> >> TIF_SYSCALL_INTERCEPT, they should adopt the semantics of checking the
> >> syscall_intercept flag, like it is done in the common entry syscall
> >> code, or even better, migrate to the common syscall entry code.
> >
> > Can we "eat" all the other flags like ptrace, audit, etc, too? Doing
> > this only for seccomp seems strange.
> 
> Hi Kees, Thanks again for the review.
> 
> Yes, we can, and I'm happy to follow up with that as part of my TIF
> clean up work, but can we not block the current patchset to be merged
> waiting for that, as this already grew a lot from the original feature
> submission?

In that case, I'd say just add the new TIF flag. The consolidation can
come later.

-- 
Kees Cook