| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3cd4826a-074e-e863-af70-43a80a996e58@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2020 13:23:43 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...onical.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, wad@...omium.org,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@...hat.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page
Hello Christian,
On 10/1/20 2:36 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> [I'm on vacation so I'll just give this a quick glance for now.]
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:07:38PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Tycho, Sargun (and all),
>>
>> I knew it would be a big ask, but below is kind of the manual page
>> I was hoping you might write [1] for the seccomp user-space notification
>> mechanism. Since you didn't (and because 5.9 adds various new pieces
>> such as SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD and SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD
>> that also will need documenting [2]), I did :-). But of course I may
>> have made mistakes...
>>
>> I've shown the rendered version of the page below, and would love
>> to receive review comments from you and others, and acks, etc.
>>
>> There are a few FIXMEs sprinkled into the page, including one
>> that relates to what appears to me to be a misdesign (possibly
>> fixable) in the operation of the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV
>> operation. I would be especially interested in feedback on that
>> FIXME, and also of course the other FIXMEs.
>>
>> The page includes an extensive (albeit slightly contrived)
>> example program, and I would be happy also to receive comments
>> on that program.
>>
>> The page source currently sits in a branch (along with the text
>> that you sent me for the seccomp(2) page) at
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=seccomp_user_notif
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/2cea5fec-e73e-5749-18af-15c35a4bd23c@gmail.com/#t
>> [2] Sargun, can you prepare something on SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD
>> and SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD to be added to this page?
>>
>> =====
>>
>> NAME
>> seccomp_user_notif - Seccomp user-space notification mechanism
>>
>> SYNOPSIS
>> #include <linux/seccomp.h>
>> #include <linux/filter.h>
>> #include <linux/audit.h>
>>
>> int seccomp(unsigned int operation, unsigned int flags, void *args);
>>
>> DESCRIPTION
>> This page describes the user-space notification mechanism pro‐
>> vided by the Secure Computing (seccomp) facility. As well as the
>> use of the SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER flag, the SEC‐
>> COMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value, and the SECCOMP_GET_NOTIF_SIZES
>> operation described in seccomp(2), this mechanism involves the
>> use of a number of related ioctl(2) operations (described below).
>>
>> Overview
>> In conventional usage of a seccomp filter, the decision about how
>> to treat a particular system call is made by the filter itself.
>> The user-space notification mechanism allows the handling of the
>> system call to instead be handed off to a user-space process.
>
> "In contrast, the user notification mechanism allows to delegate the
> handling of the system call of one process (target) to another
> user-space process (supervisor)."?
Thanks. I've reworded similarly to what you suggest.
>> The advantages of doing this are that, by contrast with the sec‐
>> comp filter, which is running on a virtual machine inside the
>> kernel, the user-space process has access to information that is
>> unavailable to the seccomp filter and it can perform actions that
>> can't be performed from the seccomp filter.
>
> This section reads a bit difficult imho:
> "A suitably privileged supervisor can use the user notification
> mechanism to perform actions in lieu of the target. The supervisor will
> usually be able to retrieve information about the target and the
> performed system call that the seccomp filter itself cannot."
Thanks. Again I've done some rewording.
>> In the discussion that follows, the process that has installed
>> the seccomp filter is referred to as the target, and the process
>> that is notified by the user-space notification mechanism is
>> referred to as the supervisor. An overview of the steps per‐
>> formed by these two processes is as follows:
After the various rewordings, the opening paragraphs now read:
In conventional usage of a seccomp filter, the decision about how
to treat a system call is made by the filter itself. By contrast,
the user-space notification mechanism allows the seccomp filter to
delegate the handling of the system call to another user-space
process.
In the discussion that follows, the thread(s) on which the seccomp
filter is installed is (are) referred to as the target, and the
process that is notified by the user-space notification mechanism
is referred to as the supervisor.
A suitably privileged supervisor can use the user-space notifica‐
tion mechanism to perform actions on behalf of the target. The
advantage of the user-space notification mechanism is that the
supervisor will usually be able to retrieve information about the
target and the performed system call that the seccomp filter
itself cannot. (A seccomp filter is limited in the information it
can obtain and the actions that it can perform because it is run‐
ning on a virtual machine inside the kernel.)
An overview of the steps performed by the target and the supervi‐
sor is as follows:
>> 1. The target process establishes a seccomp filter in the usual
>> manner, but with two differences:
>>
>> · The seccomp(2) flags argument includes the flag SECCOMP_FIL‐
>> TER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER. Consequently, the return value of
>> the (successful) seccomp(2) call is a new "listening" file
>> descriptor that can be used to receive notifications.
>
> I think it would be good to mention that seccomp notify fds are
> O_CLOEXEC by default somewhere.
Yep. This is already noted in seccomp(2).
>> · In cases where it is appropriate, the seccomp filter returns
>> the action value SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF. This return value
>> will trigger a notification event.
>>
>> 2. In order that the supervisor process can obtain notifications
>> using the listening file descriptor, (a duplicate of) that
>> file descriptor must be passed from the target process to the
>> supervisor process. One way in which this could be done is by
>> passing the file descriptor over a UNIX domain socket connec‐
>> tion between the two processes (using the SCM_RIGHTS ancillary
>> message type described in unix(7)). Another possibility is
>> that the supervisor might inherit the file descriptor via
>> fork(2).
>
> I think a few people have already pointed out other ways of retrieving
> an fd. :)
Yup.
>> 3. The supervisor process will receive notification events on the
>> listening file descriptor. These events are returned as
>> structures of type seccomp_notif. Because this structure and
>> its size may evolve over kernel versions, the supervisor must
>> first determine the size of this structure using the sec‐
>> comp(2) SECCOMP_GET_NOTIF_SIZES operation, which returns a
>> structure of type seccomp_notif_sizes. The supervisor allo‐
>> cates a buffer of size seccomp_notif_sizes.seccomp_notif bytes
>> to receive notification events. In addition,the supervisor
>> allocates another buffer of size seccomp_notif_sizes.sec‐
>> comp_notif_resp bytes for the response (a struct sec‐
>> comp_notif_resp structure) that it will provide to the kernel
>> (and thus the target process).
>>
>> 4. The target process then performs its workload, which includes
>> system calls that will be controlled by the seccomp filter.
>> Whenever one of these system calls causes the filter to return
>> the SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value, the kernel does not
>> execute the system call; instead, execution of the target
>> process is temporarily blocked inside the kernel and a notifi‐
>
> Maybe mention that the task is killable when so blocked?
Jann also noted this, and I thought it could be presumed, and so was
not thinking to add anything to the text. But, since you mention it too,
I've added some words to note that the sleep state is interruptible by
signals.
>> cation event is generated on the listening file descriptor.
>>
>> 5. The supervisor process can now repeatedly monitor the listen‐
>> ing file descriptor for SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF-triggered
>> events. To do this, the supervisor uses the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV ioctl(2) operation to read information
>> about a notification event; this operation blocks until an
>> event is available. The operation returns a seccomp_notif
>> structure containing information about the system call that is
>> being attempted by the target process.
>>
>> 6. The seccomp_notif structure returned by the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation includes the same information
>> (a seccomp_data structure) that was passed to the seccomp fil‐
>> ter. This information allows the supervisor to discover the
>> system call number and the arguments for the target process's
>> system call. In addition, the notification event contains the
>> PID of the target process.
>
> (Technically TID.)
Yep. I've already made various fixes after comments from Jann.
>> The information in the notification can be used to discover
>> the values of pointer arguments for the target process's sys‐
>> tem call. (This is something that can't be done from within a
>> seccomp filter.) To do this (and assuming it has suitable
>> permissions), the supervisor opens the corresponding
>> /proc/[pid]/mem file, seeks to the memory location that corre‐
>> sponds to one of the pointer arguments whose value is supplied
>> in the notification event, and reads bytes from that location.
>> (The supervisor must be careful to avoid a race condition that
>> can occur when doing this; see the description of the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID ioctl(2) operation below.) In addi‐
>> tion, the supervisor can access other system information that
>> is visible in user space but which is not accessible from a
>> seccomp filter.
>>
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │Suppose we are reading a pathname from /proc/PID/mem │
>> │for a system call such as mkdir(). The pathname can │
>> │be an arbitrary length. How do we know how much (how │
>> │many pages) to read from /proc/PID/mem? │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>
> This has already been answered, I believe.
Yep.
>>
>> 7. Having obtained information as per the previous step, the
>> supervisor may then choose to perform an action in response to
>> the target process's system call (which, as noted above, is
>> not executed when the seccomp filter returns the SEC‐
>> COMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value).
>
> Nit: It is not _yet_ executed it may very well be if the response is
> "continue".
Okay. I've added the word "yet" in point 4. I already elaborate on
the "continue" details later.
> This should either mention that when the fd becomes
> _RECVable the system call is guaranteed to not have executed yet or
> specify that it is not yet executed, I think.
I'm not sure that I understand your point here. I mean, doesn't the
arrival of the notification already imply that the system call hasn't
yet been executed? You seem to be drawing some distinction between
the notification vs FD being RECVable, but I don't understand what
that distinction is. Can you elaborate please...
>> One example use case here relates to containers. The target
>> process may be located inside a container where it does not
>> have sufficient capabilities to mount a filesystem in the con‐
>> tainer's mount namespace. However, the supervisor may be a
>> more privileged process that that does have sufficient capa‐
>> bilities to perform the mount operation.
>>
>> 8. The supervisor then sends a response to the notification. The
>> information in this response is used by the kernel to con‐
>> struct a return value for the target process's system call and
>> provide a value that will be assigned to the errno variable of
>> the target process.
>>
>> The response is sent using the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV
>> ioctl(2) operation, which is used to transmit a sec‐
>> comp_notif_resp structure to the kernel. This structure
>> includes a cookie value that the supervisor obtained in the
>> seccomp_notif structure returned by the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. This cookie value allows the
>> kernel to associate the response with the target process.
>
> I think here or above you should mention that the id or "cookie" _must_
> be used when a file descriptor to /proc/<pid>/mem or any /proc/<pid>/*
> is opened:
> fd = open(/proc/pid/*);
> verify_via_cookie_that_pid_still_alive(cookie);
> operate_on(fd)
>
> Otherwise this is a potential security issue.
Yes, but already in point 6 above I say:
(The supervisor must be careful to avoid a race condition that
can occur when doing this; see the description of the SEC‐
COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID ioctl(2) operation below.) In addi‐
And then I say more about the ioctl() later. So, I think that I've
covered this point sufficiently (?). Maybe you missed some of
that text. Or do you think there's still something I should add?
>> 9. Once the notification has been sent, the system call in the
>> target process unblocks, returning the information that was
>> provided by the supervisor in the notification response.
>>
>> As a variation on the last two steps, the supervisor can send a
>> response that tells the kernel that it should execute the target
>> process's system call; see the discussion of SEC‐
>> COMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE, below.
>>
>> ioctl(2) operations
>> The following ioctl(2) operations are provided to support seccomp
>> user-space notification. For each of these operations, the first
>> (file descriptor) argument of ioctl(2) is the listening file
>> descriptor returned by a call to seccomp(2) with the SECCOMP_FIL‐
>> TER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER flag.
>>
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV
>> This operation is used to obtain a user-space notification
>> event. If no such event is currently pending, the opera‐
>> tion blocks until an event occurs. The third ioctl(2)
>> argument is a pointer to a structure of the following form
>> which contains information about the event. This struc‐
>> ture must be zeroed out before the call.
>>
>> struct seccomp_notif {
>> __u64 id; /* Cookie */
>> __u32 pid; /* PID of target process */
>> __u32 flags; /* Currently unused (0) */
>> struct seccomp_data data; /* See seccomp(2) */
>> };
>>
>> The fields in this structure are as follows:
>>
>> id This is a cookie for the notification. Each such
>> cookie is guaranteed to be unique for the corre‐
>> sponding seccomp filter. In other words, this
>> cookie is unique for each notification event from
>> the target process. The cookie value has the fol‐
>> lowing uses:
>>
>> · It can be used with the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID ioctl(2) operation to
>> verify that the target process is still alive.
>>
>> · When returning a notification response to the
>> kernel, the supervisor must include the cookie
>> value in the seccomp_notif_resp structure that is
>> specified as the argument of the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND operation.
>>
>> pid This is the PID of the target process that trig‐
>> gered the notification event.
>>
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │This is a thread ID, rather than a PID, right? │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>
> Yes.
>
>>
>> flags This is a bit mask of flags providing further
>> information on the event. In the current implemen‐
>> tation, this field is always zero.
>>
>> data This is a seccomp_data structure containing infor‐
>> mation about the system call that triggered the
>> notification. This is the same structure that is
>> passed to the seccomp filter. See seccomp(2) for
>> details of this structure.
>>
>> On success, this operation returns 0; on failure, -1 is
>> returned, and errno is set to indicate the cause of the
>> error. This operation can fail with the following errors:
>>
>> EINVAL (since Linux 5.5)
>> The seccomp_notif structure that was passed to the
>> call contained nonzero fields.
>>
>> ENOENT The target process was killed by a signal as the
>> notification information was being generated.
>>
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │From my experiments, it appears that if a SEC‐ │
>> │COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV is done after the target │
>> │process terminates, then the ioctl() simply blocks │
>> │(rather than returning an error to indicate that the │
>> │target process no longer exists). │
>> │ │
>> │I found that surprising, and it required some con‐ │
>> │tortions in the example program. It was not possi‐ │
>> │ble to code my SIGCHLD handler (which reaps the zom‐ │
>> │bie when the worker/target process terminates) to │
>> │simply set a flag checked in the main handleNotifi‐ │
>> │cations() loop, since this created an unavoidable │
>> │race where the child might terminate just after I │
>> │had checked the flag, but before I blocked (for‐ │
>> │ever!) in the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. │
>> │Instead, I had to code the signal handler to simply │
>> │call _exit(2) in order to terminate the parent │
>> │process (the supervisor). │
>> │ │
>> │Is this expected behavior? It seems to me rather │
>> │desirable that SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV should give │
>> │an error if the target process has terminated. │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>
> This has been discussed later in the thread too, I believe. My patchset
> fixed a different but related bug in ->poll() when a filter becomes
> unused. I hadn't noticed this behavior since I'm always polling. (Pure
> ioctls() feel a bit fishy to me. :) But obviously a valid use.)
Yes, I hope the ioctl() can be fixed.
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID
>> This operation can be used to check that a notification ID
>> returned by an earlier SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation
>> is still valid (i.e., that the target process still
>> exists).
>>
>> The third ioctl(2) argument is a pointer to the cookie
>> (id) returned by the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation.
>>
>> This operation is necessary to avoid race conditions that
>> can occur when the pid returned by the SEC‐
>> COMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation terminates, and that
>> process ID is reused by another process. An example of
>> this kind of race is the following
>>
>> 1. A notification is generated on the listening file
>> descriptor. The returned seccomp_notif contains the
>> PID of the target process.
>>
>> 2. The target process terminates.
>>
>> 3. Another process is created on the system that by chance
>> reuses the PID that was freed when the target process
>> terminates.
>>
>> 4. The supervisor open(2)s the /proc/[pid]/mem file for
>> the PID obtained in step 1, with the intention of (say)
>> inspecting the memory locations that contains the argu‐
>> ments of the system call that triggered the notifica‐
>> tion in step 1.
>>
>> In the above scenario, the risk is that the supervisor may
>> try to access the memory of a process other than the tar‐
>> get. This race can be avoided by following the call to
>> open with a SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID operation to ver‐
>> ify that the process that generated the notification is
>> still alive. (Note that if the target process subse‐
>> quently terminates, its PID won't be reused because there
>> remains an open reference to the /proc[pid]/mem file; in
>> this case, a subsequent read(2) from the file will return
>> 0, indicating end of file.)
>>
>> On success (i.e., the notification ID is still valid),
>> this operation returns 0 On failure (i.e., the notifica‐
>
> Missing a ".", I think.
(Yup. Already fixed.)
>> tion ID is no longer valid), -1 is returned, and errno is
>> set to ENOENT.
>>
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND
>> This operation is used to send a notification response
>> back to the kernel. The third ioctl(2) argument of this
>> structure is a pointer to a structure of the following
>> form:
>>
>> struct seccomp_notif_resp {
>> __u64 id; /* Cookie value */
>> __s64 val; /* Success return value */
>> __s32 error; /* 0 (success) or negative
>> error number */
>> __u32 flags; /* See below */
>> };
>>
>> The fields of this structure are as follows:
>>
>> id This is the cookie value that was obtained using
>> the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. This
>> cookie value allows the kernel to correctly asso‐
>> ciate this response with the system call that trig‐
>> gered the user-space notification.
>>
>> val This is the value that will be used for a spoofed
>> success return for the target process's system
>> call; see below.
>>
>> error This is the value that will be used as the error
>> number (errno) for a spoofed error return for the
>> target process's system call; see below.
>
> Nit: "val" is only used when "error" is not set.
Yes. I note that below. I don't want to clutter this part of the page with
too many details.
>> flags This is a bit mask that includes zero or more of
>> the following flags
>>
>> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE (since Linux 5.5)
>> Tell the kernel to execute the target
>> process's system call.
>>
>> Two kinds of response are possible:
>>
>> · A response to the kernel telling it to execute the tar‐
>> get process's system call. In this case, the flags
>> field includes SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE and the
>> error and val fields must be zero.
>>
>> This kind of response can be useful in cases where the
>> supervisor needs to do deeper analysis of the target's
>> system call than is possible from a seccomp filter
>> (e.g., examining the values of pointer arguments), and,
>> having verified that the system call is acceptable, the
>> supervisor wants to allow it to proceed.
>
> I think Jann has pointed this out. This needs to come with a big warning
> and I would explicitly put a:
> "The user notification mechanism cannot be used to implement a syscall
> security policy in user space!"
> You might want to take a look at the seccomp.h header file where I
> placed a giant warning about how to use this too.
Yes. Kees also raised this. See my reply to Jann (who pasted in a copy
of part of your comment from seccomp.h). I'm going to freely reuse the
text from your comment. Please take a look at the text in my reply to Jann,
ad let me know wat you think.
>> · A spoofed return value for the target process's system
>> call. In this case, the kernel does not execute the
>> target process's system call, instead causing the system
>> call to return a spoofed value as specified by fields of
>> the seccomp_notif_resp structure. The supervisor should
>> set the fields of this structure as follows:
>>
>> + flags does not contain SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CON‐
>> TINUE.
>>
>> + error is set either to 0 for a spoofed "success"
>> return or to a negative error number for a spoofed
>> "failure" return. In the former case, the kernel
>> causes the target process's system call to return the
>> value specified in the val field. In the later case,
>> the kernel causes the target process's system call to
>> return -1, and errno is assigned the negated error
>> value.
>>
>> + val is set to a value that will be used as the return
>> value for a spoofed "success" return for the target
>> process's system call. The value in this field is
>> ignored if the error field contains a nonzero value.
>>
>> On success, this operation returns 0; on failure, -1 is
>> returned, and errno is set to indicate the cause of the
>> error. This operation can fail with the following errors:
>>
>> EINPROGRESS
>> A response to this notification has already been
>> sent.
>>
>> EINVAL An invalid value was specified in the flags field.
>>
>> EINVAL The flags field contained SEC‐
>> COMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE, and the error or val
>> field was not zero.
>>
>> ENOENT The blocked system call in the target process has
>> been interrupted by a signal handler.
>>
>> 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.
>
> This should also note that when a filter becomes unused, i.e. the last
> task using that filter in its filter hierarchy is dead (been
> reaped/autoreaped) ->poll() will notify with (E)POLLHUP.
Ahh! Now I understand. I was unaware of this. Jann commented that
poll() could be used as well, but you provided enough detail that
now I understand how this works. I added the following in NOTES
where poll/select/epoll are described:
· After the last thread using the filter has terminated and been
reaped using waitpid(2) (or similar), the file descriptor indi‐
cates an end-of-file condition (readable in select(2); POLL‐
HUP/EPOLLHUP in poll(2)/ epoll_wait(2)).
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │Interestingly, after the event had been received, │
>> │the file descriptor indicates as writable (verified │
>> │from the source code and by experiment). How is this │
>> │useful? │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>>
>> EXAMPLES
>> The (somewhat contrived) program shown below demonstrates the use
>> of the interfaces described in this page. The program creates a
>> child process that serves as the "target" process. The child
>> process installs a seccomp filter that returns the SEC‐
>> COMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value if a call is made to mkdir(2).
>> The child process then calls mkdir(2) once for each of the sup‐
>> plied command-line arguments, and reports the result returned by
>> the call. After processing all arguments, the child process ter‐
>> minates.
>>
>> The parent process acts as the supervisor, listening for the
>> notifications that are generated when the target process calls
>> mkdir(2). When such a notification occurs, the supervisor exam‐
>> ines the memory of the target process (using /proc/[pid]/mem) to
>> discover the pathname argument that was supplied to the mkdir(2)
>> call, and performs one of the following actions:
>>
>> · If the pathname begins with the prefix "/tmp/", then the super‐
>> visor attempts to create the specified directory, and then
>> spoofs a return for the target process based on the return
>> value of the supervisor's mkdir(2) call. In the event that
>> that call succeeds, the spoofed success return value is the
>> length of the pathname.
>>
>> · If the pathname begins with "./" (i.e., it is a relative path‐
>> name), the supervisor sends a SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE
>> response to the kernel to say that kernel should execute the
>> target process's mkdir(2) call.
>
> Potentially problematic if the two processes have the same privilege
> level and the supervisor intends _CONTINUE to mean "is safe to execute".
Understood. But I think that needs to be clarified elsewhere in the
page, since it's essentially the same point as "The user notification
mechanism cannot be used to implement a syscall security policy in
user space!" See my reply to Jann.
> An attacker could try to re-write arguments afaict.
By an attacker, I presume you mean a malign supervisor, right.
Sure, it looks to me as though rewriting arguments could be
possible. But, if you had privilege to do that, you'd presumably
have privileges for any number of other nefarious actities, right?
(So, I don't think anything special needs to be said here; let me
know if you feel something does need to be said.
> A good an easy example is usually mknod() in a user namespace. A
> _CONTINUE is always safe since you can't create device nodes anyway.
Okay -- but I wanted to provide an example (admittedly very
contrived) to show how the supervisor could either do the systcall
on behalf of the target, or leave things to the target to execute
the system call. Do you feel that the example is leading people
astray?
> Sorry, I can't review the rest in sufficient detail since I'm on
> vacation still so I'm just going to shut up now. :)
Well, thanks already, because your comments were already very
useful!. I will send out a new draft shortly :-).
Thanks,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists