| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 10:58:50 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>,
Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:47:54PM +0200, Jann Horn via Containers wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Brauner
> <christian.brauner@...onical.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Jann Horn via Containers wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 1:07 PM Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> > > <mtk.manpages@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > NOTES
> > > > The file descriptor returned when seccomp(2) is employed with the
> > > > SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER flag can be monitored using
> > > > poll(2), epoll(7), and select(2). When a notification is pend‐
> > > > ing, these interfaces indicate that the file descriptor is read‐
> > > > able.
> > >
> > > We should probably also point out somewhere that, as
> > > include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h says:
> > >
> > > * Similar precautions should be applied when stacking SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> > > * or SECCOMP_RET_TRACE. For SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF filters acting on the
> > > * same syscall, the most recently added filter takes precedence. This means
> > > * that the new SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF filter can override any
> > > * SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND from earlier filters, essentially allowing all
> > > * such filtered syscalls to be executed by sending the response
> > > * SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE. Note that SECCOMP_RET_TRACE can equally
> > > * be overriden by SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE.
> > >
> > > In other words, from a security perspective, you must assume that the
> > > target process can bypass any SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF (or
> > > SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) filters unless it is completely prohibited from
> > > calling seccomp(). This should also be noted over in the main
> > > seccomp(2) manpage, especially the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE part.
> >
> > So I was actually wondering about this when I skimmed this and a while
> > ago but forgot about this again... Afaict, you can only ever load a
> > single filter with SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER set. If there
> > already is a filter with the SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER property
> > in the tasks filter hierarchy then the kernel will refuse to load a new
> > one?
> >
> > static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> > {
> > struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> > struct seccomp_filter *cur;
> >
> > for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> > if (cur->notif)
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > shouldn't that be sufficient to guarantee that USER_NOTIF filters can't
> > override each other for the same task simply because there can only ever
> > be a single one?
>
> Good point. Exceeeept that that check seems ineffective because this
> happens before we take the locks that guard against TSYNC, and also
> before we decide to which existing filter we want to chain the new
> filter. So if two threads race with TSYNC, I think they'll be able to
> chain two filters with listeners together.
Yep, seems the check needs to also be in seccomp_can_sync_threads() to
be totally effective,
> I don't know whether we want to eternalize this "only one listener
> across all the filters" restriction in the manpage though, or whether
> the man page should just say that the kernel currently doesn't support
> it but that security-wise you should assume that it might at some
> point.
This requirement originally came from Andy, arguing that the semantics
of this were/are confusing, which still makes sense to me. Perhaps we
should do something like the below?
Tycho
diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index 3ee59ce0a323..7b107207c2b0 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -376,6 +376,18 @@ static int is_ancestor(struct seccomp_filter *parent,
return 0;
}
+static bool has_listener_parent(struct seccomp_filter *child)
+{
+ struct seccomp_filter *cur;
+
+ for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
+ if (cur->notif)
+ return true;
+ }
+
+ return false;
+}
+
/**
* seccomp_can_sync_threads: checks if all threads can be synchronized
*
@@ -385,7 +397,7 @@ static int is_ancestor(struct seccomp_filter *parent,
* either not in the correct seccomp mode or did not have an ancestral
* seccomp filter.
*/
-static inline pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
+static inline pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(unsigned int flags)
{
struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
@@ -407,6 +419,11 @@ static inline pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
caller->seccomp.filter)))
continue;
+ /* don't allow TSYNC to install multiple listeners */
+ if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER &&
+ !has_listener_parent(thread->seccomp.filter))
+ continue;
+
/* Return the first thread that cannot be synchronized. */
failed = task_pid_vnr(thread);
/* If the pid cannot be resolved, then return -ESRCH */
@@ -637,7 +654,7 @@ static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC) {
int ret;
- ret = seccomp_can_sync_threads();
+ ret = seccomp_can_sync_threads(flags);
if (ret) {
if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC_ESRCH)
return -ESRCH;
@@ -1462,12 +1479,9 @@ static const struct file_operations seccomp_notify_ops = {
static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
{
struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
- struct seccomp_filter *cur;
- for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
- if (cur->notif)
- goto out;
- }
+ if (has_listener_parent(current->seccomp.filter))
+ goto out;
ret = ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
filter->notif = kzalloc(sizeof(*(filter->notif)), GFP_KERNEL);
Powered by blists - more mailing lists