linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without filtering

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: <20250117170229.f1e1a9f03a8547d31cd875db@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:02:29 +0900
From: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>, kees@...nel.org,
 luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
 andrii@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
 olsajiri@...il.com, cyphar@...har.com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
 john.fastabend@...il.com, peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
 bp@...en8.de, daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org,
 andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, rafi@....io,
 shmulik.ladkani@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without
 filtering

On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:28 +0100
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:

> On 01/16, Eyal Birger wrote:
> >
> > Fixes: ff474a78cef5 ("uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return probe")
> > Reported-by: Rafael Buchbinder <rafi@....io>
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHsH6Gs3Eh8DFU0wq58c_LF8A4_+o6z456J7BidmcVY2AqOnHQ@mail.gmail.com/
> > Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> ...
> > @@ -1359,6 +1359,11 @@ int __secure_computing(const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> >  	this_syscall = sd ? sd->nr :
> >  		syscall_get_nr(current, current_pt_regs());
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > +	if (unlikely(this_syscall == __NR_uretprobe) && !in_ia32_syscall())
> > +		return 0;
> > +#endif
> 
> Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
> 
> 
> A note for the seccomp maintainers...
> 
> I don't know what do you think, but I agree in advance that the very fact this
> patch adds "#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64" into __secure_computing() doesn't look nice.
> 

Indeed. in_ia32_syscall() depends arch/x86 too.
We can add an inline function like;

``` uprobes.h
static inline bool is_uprobe_syscall(int syscall)
{
	// arch_is_uprobe_syscall check can be replaced by Kconfig,
	// something like CONFIG_ARCH_URETPROBE_SYSCALL.
#ifdef arch_is_uprobe_syscall
	return arch_is_uprobe_syscall(syscall)
#else
	return false;
#endif
}
```
and 
``` arch/x86/include/asm/uprobes.h
#define arch_is_uprobe_syscall(syscall) \
	(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_X86_64) && syscall == __NR_uretprobe && !in_ia32_syscall())
```

> The problem is that we need a simple patch for -stable which fixes the real
> problem. We can cleanup this logic later, I think.

Hmm, at least we should make it is_uprobe_syscall() in uprobes.h so that
do not pollute the seccomp subsystem with #ifdef.

Thank you,



> 
> Oleg.
> 


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org>