[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:33:35 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net,
hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@...omium.org, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 02/28, Will Drewry wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Great. In this case this patch becomes really trivial. Just 2 defines
>> >> in ptrace.h and the unconditional ptrace_event() under SECCOMP_RET_TRACE.
>>
>> hrm the only snag is that I can't then rely on TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE to
>> ensure seccomp is in the slow-path. Right now, on x86, seccomp is
>> slow-path, but it doesn't have to be to have the syscall and args.
>> However, for ptrace to behavior properly, I believed it did need to be
>> in the slow path. If SECCOMP_RET_TRACE doesn't rely on
>> PTRACE_SYSCALL, then it introduces a need for seccomp to always be in
>> the slow path or to flag (somehow) when it needs slow path.
>
> My understanding of this magic is very limited, and I'm afraid
> I misunderstood... So please correct me.
>
> But what is the problem? system_call checks _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY
> which includes _TIF_SECCOMP | _TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE, and jumps to
> tracesys which does SAVE_REST.
>
> Anyway. secure_computing() is called by syscall_trace_enter() which
> also calls tracehook_report_syscall_entry(). If SECCOMP_RET_TRACE
> can't do ptrace_event() then why tracehook_report_syscall_entry() is
> fine?
Early on in this patch series, I was urged away from regviews (for
many reasons), one of them was so that seccomp could, at some point,
be fast-path'd like audit is for x86. (It may be on arm already, I'd
need to check.) So I was hoping that I could avoid adding a slow-path
dependency to the seccomp code.
Right now, on x86, you are exactly right: Both seccomp and ptrace take
the slow path as part of _TIF_WORK_SYSCALL_ENTRY, and seccomp is only
called in syscall_trace_enter. By adding a requirement for the
slow-path in the form of ptrace_event(), the difficulty for making
seccomp fast-path friendly is increased. (It could be possible to add
a return code, e.g., return NEEDS_SLOW_PATH, which tells the fast path
code to restart the handling at syscall_trace_enter, so maybe I am
making a big deal out of nothing.)
I was hoping to avoid having TIF_SECCOMP imply the slow-path, but if
that is the only sane way to integrate, then I can leave making it
fast-path friendly as a future exercise.
If I'm over-optimizing, just say so, and I'll post the v12 with the
docs updated to indicate that, at present, seccomp filters requires
the slow path. However, if you see a nice way to avoid the
dependency, I'd love to know!
Thanks!
will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
