linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 4/6] seccomp/cache: Lookup syscall allowlist for fast path

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:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:46:06 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
Cc:     containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 4/6] seccomp/cache: Lookup syscall allowlist
 for fast path

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 07:44:19AM -0500, YiFei Zhu wrote:
> From: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>
> 
> The fast (common) path for seccomp should be that the filter permits
> the syscall to pass through, and failing seccomp is expected to be
> an exceptional case; it is not expected for userspace to call a
> denylisted syscall over and over.
> 
> This first finds the current allow bitmask by iterating through
> syscall_arches[] array and comparing it to the one in struct
> seccomp_data; this loop is expected to be unrolled. It then
> does a test_bit against the bitmask. If the bit is set, then
> there is no need to run the full filter; it returns
> SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW immediately.
> 
> Co-developed-by: Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>
> Signed-off-by: Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>
> Signed-off-by: YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>
> ---
>  kernel/seccomp.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index 20d33378a092..ac0266b6d18a 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -167,6 +167,12 @@ static inline void seccomp_cache_inherit(struct seccomp_filter *sfilter,
>  					 const struct seccomp_filter *prev)
>  {
>  }
> +
> +static inline bool seccomp_cache_check(const struct seccomp_filter *sfilter,
> +				       const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> +{
> +	return false;
> +}
>  #endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_CACHE_NR_ONLY */
>  
>  /**
> @@ -321,6 +327,34 @@ static int seccomp_check_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_CACHE_NR_ONLY
> +/**
> + * seccomp_cache_check - lookup seccomp cache
> + * @sfilter: The seccomp filter
> + * @sd: The seccomp data to lookup the cache with
> + *
> + * Returns true if the seccomp_data is cached and allowed.
> + */
> +static bool seccomp_cache_check(const struct seccomp_filter *sfilter,
> +				const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> +{
> +	int syscall_nr = sd->nr;
> +	int arch;
> +
> +	if (unlikely(syscall_nr < 0 || syscall_nr >= NR_syscalls))
> +		return false;

This protects us from x32 (i.e. syscall_nr will have 0x40000000 bit
set), but given the effort needed to support compat, I think supporting
x32 isn't much more. (Though again, I note that NR_syscalls differs in
size, so this test needs to be per-arch and obviously after
arch-discovery.)

That said, if it really does turn out that x32 is literally the only
architecture doing these shenanigans (and I suspect not, given the MIPS
case), okay, fine, I'll give in. :) You and Jann both seem to think this
isn't worth it.

> +
> +	for (arch = 0; arch < ARRAY_SIZE(syscall_arches); arch++) {
> +		if (likely(syscall_arches[arch] == sd->arch))

I think this linear search for the matching arch can be made O(1) (this
is what I was trying to do in v1: we can map all possible combos to a
distinct bitmap, so there is just math and lookup rather than a linear
compare search. In the one-arch case, it can also be easily collapsed
into a no-op (though my v1 didn't do this correctly).

> +			return test_bit(syscall_nr,
> +					sfilter->cache.syscall_ok[arch]);
> +	}
> +
> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(true);
> +	return false;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_CACHE_NR_ONLY */
> +
>  /**
>   * seccomp_run_filters - evaluates all seccomp filters against @sd
>   * @sd: optional seccomp data to be passed to filters
> @@ -343,6 +377,9 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd,
>  	if (WARN_ON(f == NULL))
>  		return SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
>  
> +	if (seccomp_cache_check(f, sd))
> +		return SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * All filters in the list are evaluated and the lowest BPF return
>  	 * value always takes priority (ignoring the DATA).
> -- 
> 2.28.0
> 

-- 
Kees Cook