[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 14:01:09 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu>, 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,
mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...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,
pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/11] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 02/22/2012 11:47 AM, Will Drewry wrote:
>>>
>>> I highly disagree with every filter having to check the mode: Filters that
>>> don't check the arch on e.g. x86 are buggy, so they have to check it, even
>>> if it's a 32-bit or 64-bit only system, the filters can't know that and
>>> needs to check the arch at every syscall entry. All other info in the data
>>> depends on the arch, because of this there isn't much code to share between
>>> the two archs, so you can as well have one filter for each arch.
>>>
>>> Alternative approach: Tell the arch at filter install time and only run the
>>> filters with the same arch as the current system call. If no filters are run,
>>> deny the systemcall.
>>
>> This was roughly how I first implemented compat and non-compat
>> support. It causes some implicit behavior across inheritance that is
>> not nice though.
>>
>
> This is trivially doable at the BPF level, right? Just make this the
> first instruction in the program (either deny or jump to a separate
> program branch)... and then there is still "one program" without any
> weird inheritance issues?
Exactly, and that's what the patch does now (after your feedback :)
ld arch
je arch, 1, 0
ret SECCOMP_RET_KILL
<rest of bpf program>
At this point, I don't think it makes sense to do it a different way
than just in the BPF program even if it does mean leaving out the
check could leave the program open to compat-style bugs. At least a
shared library and/or good practices should be able to catch that
error.
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.
