linux-kernel - Re: Chromium sandbox on LoongArch and statx -- seccomp deep argument inspection again?

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: <8e5e31daa3b76dc80ff5ec6ad46191bfd87f7df7.camel@xry111.site>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 00:49:51 +0800
From: Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To: Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>, 
 WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Kees Cook
 <keescook@...omium.org>, Xuefeng Li <lixuefeng@...ngson.cn>, Jianmin Lv
 <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>, Xiaotian Wu <wuxiaotian@...ngson.cn>, WANG Rui
 <wangrui@...ngson.cn>, Miao Wang <shankerwangmiao@...il.com>,
 "loongarch@...ts.linux.dev" <loongarch@...ts.linux.dev>, Linux-Arch
 <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List
 <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Chromium sandbox on LoongArch and statx -- seccomp deep
 argument inspection again?

On Mon, 2024-02-26 at 16:40 +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:

> > I definitely don't want to see a new time32 API added to
> > mips64 and the 32-bit architectures, so the existing stat64
> > interface won't work as a statx replacement.
> 
> I don't specifically care but the same way you don't want to see newer
> time32 apis added to architectures I don't want to have hacks in our
> system calls that aren't even a clear solution to the problem outlined
> in this thread.

So we should have a fstat_whatever64, IMO.

> Short of adding fstatx() the problem isn't solved by a new flag to
> statx() as explained in my other mails. But I'm probably missing
> something here because I find this notion of "design system calls for
> seccomp and the Chromium sandbox" to be an absurd notion and it makes me
> a bit impatient.

I'm sharing the feeling on seccomp and/or (mis)uses of it, but using
statx() or fstatat() for fstat() has a performance impact as they must
inspect path (do a uaccess) and make sure it's an empty string, and
Linus concluded "if the user want fstat, you should give the user fstat"
for this issue:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2023-September/151365.html

If it was just seccomp I'd not comment on this topic at all.

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University