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  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]
Date:	Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:08:30 -0700
From:	Andy Lutomirski <>
To:	Kees Cook <>
Cc:	Tycho Andersen <>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <>,
	Will Drewry <>,
	Oleg Nesterov <>,
	Pavel Emelyanov <>,
	"Serge E. Hallyn" <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,
	LKML <>,
	Network Development <>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Kees Cook <> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Tycho Andersen
> <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 02:48:03PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Tycho Andersen
>>> <> wrote:
>>> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:17:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Tycho Andersen
>>> >> <> wrote:
>>> >> > This commit adds a way to dump eBPF programs. The initial implementation
>>> >> > doesn't support maps, and therefore only allows dumping seccomp ebpf
>>> >> > programs which themselves don't currently support maps.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > We export the GPL bit as well as a unique ID for the program so that
>>> >>
>>> >> This unique ID appears to be the heap address for the prog. That's a
>>> >> huge leak, and should not be done. We don't want to introduce new
>>> >> kernel address leaks while we're trying to fix the remaining ones.
>>> >> Shouldn't the "unique ID" be the fd itself? I imagine KCMP_FILE
>>> >> could be used, for example.
>>> >
>>> > No; we acquire the fd per process, so if a task installs a filter and
>>> > then forks N times, we'll grab N (+1) copies of the filter from N (+1)
>>> > different file descriptors. Ideally, we'd have some way to figure out
>>> > that these were all the same. Some sort of prog_id is one way,
>>> > although there may be others.
>>> I disagree a bit.  I think we want the actual hierarchy to be a
>>> well-defined thing, because I have plans to make the hierarchy
>>> actually do something.  That means that we'll need to have a more
>>> exact way to dump the hierarchy than "these two filters are identical"
>>> or "these two filters are not identical".
>> Can you elaborate on what this would look like? I think with the
>> "these two filters are the same" primitive (the same in the sense that
>> they were inherited during a fork, not just that
>> memcmp(filter1->insns, filter2->insns) == 0) you can infer the entire
>> hierarchy, however clunky it may be to do so.
>> Another issue is that KCMP_FILE won't work in this case, as it
>> effectively compares the struct file *, which will be different since
>> we need to call anon_inode_getfd() for each call of
>> ptrace(PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER_FD). We could add a KCMP_BPF (or just
>> a KCMP_FILE_PRIVATE_DATA, since that's effectively what it would be).
>> Does that make sense? [added Cyrill]
> If KCMP_FILE_PRIVATE_DATA isn't desired, I think a global counter id
> is the next best.

The problem is that you can't checkpoint and restore it.  We could
have a counter relative to the parent filter, though.


> -Kees
> --
> Kees Cook
> Chrome OS Security

Andy Lutomirski
AMA Capital Management, LLC
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists