Re: Using ftrace/perf as a basis for generic seccomp

[Eric Paris]

On Wed, 2011-02-02 at 13:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Eric,
> > 
> > (2011/02/01 23:58), Eric Paris wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Eric Paris <eparis@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> Some time ago Adam posted a patch to allow for a generic seccomp
> > >> implementation (unlike the current seccomp where your choice is all
> > >> syscalls or only read, write, sigreturn, and exit) which got little
> > >> traction and it was suggested he instead do the same thing somehow using
> > >> the tracing code:
> > >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/833556
> > 
> > Hm, interesting idea :)
> > But why would you like to use tracing code? just for hooking?
> 
> What I suggested before was to reuse the scripting engine and the tracepoints.
> 
> I.e. the "seccomp restrictions" can be implemented via a filter expression - and the 
> scripting engine could be generalized so that such 'sandboxing' code can make use of 
> it.
> 
> For example, if you want to restrict a process to only allow open() syscalls to fd 4 
> (a very restrictive sandbox), it could be done via this filter expression:
> 
> 	'fd == 4'
> 
> etc. Note that obviously the scripting engine needs to be abstracted out somewhat - 
> but this is the basic idea, to reuse the callbacks and reuse the scripting engine 
> for runtime filtering of syscall parameters.

Any pointers on what is involved in this abstraction?  I can work out
the details, but I don't know the big picture well enough to even start
to move forwards.....

-Eric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/