linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CABqSeATpdn48Jbc1zLugbJBhRJNKr0P+BVx0SyODrEQgrX9HMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 24 Sep 2020 02:51:20 -0500
From:   YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@....com>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@...cmu.edu>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@...hat.com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@...ibm.com>,
        bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@...inois.edu>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@...inois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@...inois.edu>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@...inois.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] seccomp: Implement constant action bitmaps

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:38 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > Would you mind educating me how this patch plan one handling MIPS? For
> > one kernel they seem to have up to three arch numbers per build,
> > AUDIT_ARCH_MIPS{,64,64N32}. Though ARCH_TRACE_IGNORE_COMPAT_SYSCALLS
> > does not seem to be defined for MIPS so I'm assuming the syscall
> > numbers are the same, but I think it is possible some client uses that
> > arch number to pose different constraints for different processes, so
> > it would better not accelerate them rather than break them.
>
> I'll take a look, but I'm hoping it won't be too hard to fit into what
> I've got designed so for to deal with x86_x32. (Will MIPS want this
> optimization at all?)

I just took a slightly closer look at MIPS and it seems that they have
sparse syscall numbers (defines HAVE_SPARSE_SYSCALL_NR). I don't know
how the different "regions of syscall numbers" are affected by arch
numbers, however...