Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] seccomp_filters: system call filtering using BPF

[Will Drewry]

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'll try to reduce the vebrosity level a bit, for everyone's sake.

Me too - I wasn't speaking just about your verbosity level :)

> On Tue, January 17, 2012 18:37, Will Drewry wrote:
>>> If BPF is always 32 bits and people have to deal with the 64 bit pain
>>> anyway, you can as well have one fixed ABI that is always the same and
>>> cross-platform by just making the arguments always 64 bit, with lower
>>> and upper halves in a fixed order to avoid endianness problems. This
>>> would be compat and future safe.
>>
>> What happens if unsigned long is no longer 64-bit in some distant future?
>
> It won't matter, because unsigned long is not used directly and system calls
> will stay 64 bit anyway.
>
> Besides that, I don't think unsigned long will ever be bigger than 64-bit.
> And if it did, by that time, we can only hope that BPF has gained 64-bit
> support and hence a new ABI.

There is a BPF major and minor number exported from linux/filter.h so
it's possible to add BPF instructions without needing to change the
data layout, but yeah - anything beyond 64-bit is stretching it at
this point I guess.

>> As to endianness, fixed endianess means that userland programs that
>> have a different endianness will need to translate their values.  It's
>> just shifting the work around.
>
> No, they never need to translate values. BPF is 32 bit, it doesn't work
> on longs directly. If you make it explicit where the upper half of a
> 64-bit value goes, it can be set and read directly. Only when you access
> one half of a 64-bit value through a pointer do you need to worry about
> endianness. That doesn't happen with my proposal, it does if the data
> you expose contains longs.

True enough and data adjacency is all an illusion to BPF anyway.  As
long as the struct layout is respected, the BPF engine can
index/offset/etc however it likes.

>> Not really.  I lock down the compat case.  _Even_ with fixed 64-bit
>> arguments, you still get system call number mismatches which mean you
>> need to keep independent filters for the same task. I had this in one
>> of my first implementations and it adds a nasty amount of implicit
>> logic during evaluation.
>
> Well, that's why I proposed to have a way to set filters per personality.
> Then applications can just blindly install both the 32 and the 64 bit
> filters and be assured the kernel picks up the right one. A -1 means
> "use current personality", anything else uses the personality given.
>
> Without a persona option you can only install filters for the current
> personality, which can be a hassle, especially if the task gets killed
> if it changes mode and calls a system call.

In general, this is a good thing.  Very few legitimate programs change
personality after putting themselves in any sort of restricted
environment. I've only seen that used to escape ptrace jails.

>>> It's not portable because it is different for every arch.
>>
>> I was describing the kernel code, not the data set.  By using
>> regviews, I get the consistent register view for the personality of
>> the process for the architecture it is running on.  This means that
>> the user_regs_struct will always be consistent _for the architecture_
>> when given to the user's BPF code.  It does not create a portable
>> userland ABI but instead uses the existing ABI in a way that is
>> arch-agnostic in the kernel (using the regviews interfaces for arch
>> fixup).
>
> I argue from user space's point of view, which probably explains most
> of our disagreements. :-)

Makes sense!

>>> And they will get the offsets wrong if they are on 64 bits because those are
>>> different than for ptrace. The ptrace ABI uses longs, BPF is fixed to 32 bits,
>>> it's just not a good fit.
>>
>> That's not true on x86-64:
>>
>>  http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.2.1/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c#L945
>>
>> PEEKUSR uses the offsetof() the 32-bit register struct for compat
>> calls and, with that macro, maps it to the proper entry in pt_regs.
>> For non-compat, it just uses the offset into pt_regs:
>>   http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.2.1/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c#L475
>>   lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.2.1/arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c#L170
>>
>> As there is significant overlap in the contents of user_regs_struct
>> and pt_regs on the platform. While it's possible for another arch to
>> use a different set of ptrace ABI offsets, using offsetof(struct
>> user_regs_struct, ...) will always work.  It is not long-based.
>>
>> If you want to convince me this isn't a good fit, I need you to meet
>> me halfway and make sure your assertions match the code! :)
>
> You're right, the offset is in bytes, not words.
>
> I was looking at my own code, which uses an array of longs and indexes
> into that, and got defines for the register indices. So it's my own
> abstraction layer that's long-based, not ptrace. with ptrace I use
> PTRACE_GETREGS, so I don't use offsets there.

Makes sense!

>>>>> What special clone/fork registers are you talking about?
>>>>
>>>> On x86, si is used to indicate the tls area:
>>>>   http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.2.1/arch/x86/kernel/process_32.c#L238
>>>> (and r8 on 64-bit).  Also segment registers, etc.
>>>
>>> si is just the 4th (5th for x86_64) system call argument, it's nothing special.
>>
>> True - arguably though fork() takes no arguments.  Now
>> syscall_get_arguments() won't know that, so si/r8 and all will still
>> be exposed for filtering.  For some reason, I thought some other
>> pieces were used (EFLAGS?), but I can't back that up in the source.
>
> si is only used when the CLONE_SETTLS flag is set. Fork doesn't set flag,
> it comes from a clone argument.

Doh. No idea what I was thinking about then.

>>> System calls never use segment registers directly, do they? It's not part
>>> of the system call ABI, so why would you want to use them in filtering?
>>
>> On x86-32, you may be using segmentation for isolation purposes.  If
>> you do so, it may be of interest where the call comes from.  Nothing
>> truly relevant, just another possibility.  *shrug*
>
> Isn't EIP an absolute address, corrected for any segmentation?
> Or relative to fixed segment registers user space can't change?
> Doesn't really matter I suppose.

Nah. I think my user_regs_struct proposal is dead on its feet.  Roland
pointed out a much stronger reason to drop it than even performance.
Right now, seccomp takes the system call slow-path which adds some
pretty heavy overheads, but there is very little reason that it
couldn't take a fast-path.  If I add a dependency on all register
state being available, then the fast-path is never an option again.
I'd prefer to dream of a fast-path seccomp than to have access to all
the register state. :)  (On an Atom, the overhead is on the order of a
few hundred nanoseconds iirc.)

>>
>>>>> I don't think anyone would want to ever filter sig_rt_return, you can as
>>>>> well kill the process.
>>>>
>>>> Why make that decision for them?
>>>
>>> I don't, I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to filter it. Based on what
>>> would anyone ever want to filter it? It's just a kernel helper thing to
>>> implement signal handlers.
>>
>> What if you want the process to die if it returns from any signals?
>
> Why would you want that? You can as well send it a SIGKILL at random moments.

I look at this from the case where there is no supervisor.  An example
might be if you want fire up a sandbox and want to make sure that no
signals are handled by the untrusted code.  A bit unnatural, but I
could see it being desirable in some very limited cases.

>>> But now you mention it, it won't be bad to enforce this in the kernel,
>>> otherwise everyone has to add code to allow it. Same for exit(_group).
>>> Because if those are denied, there's nothing else to run instead.
>>
>> The process will be do_exit()d.  I don't know why it matters?
>
> Ah, yes, because you kill the process if the filter fails.
>
> Won't it change the return value and exit state?

Nope - that'd require a call to syscall_set_error.  The entry point to
seccomp, __secure_computing, does not return a value. So you'd have to
call the helper and not all arches that support seccomp also support
syscall_*.  Though it now seems like syscall_get_arguments will be a
requirement for seccomp_filter so it is fair to reconsider the
syscall_* helpers.  The only trickiness is that calling them could
change the subsequent behavior of ptrace or syscall audits since they
are linearly evaluated in the slow-path (on x86 - not all arches).

> And in the case of exit_group, do you kill just the thread or the whole
> process? Whatever you choose, it either won't be possible to exit one
> thread anymore, or any thread exiting kills all threads.

Yeah

> Seems better to always allow it. You may not like the overhead of checking
> specific system calls, but it's either hardcoded or done in every filter.
> I suppose it doesn't really matter. If it can be done easily in the kernel,
> then just do it there. If it's too much of a hassle, push it to the filters.

Checking specific syscall numbers is a PITA.  For all CONFIG_COMPAT
supporting arches, you have to add a seccomp_syscall_blah and
seccomp_syscall_blah_32 so you filter the right numbers.  Better to
leave it to the filters :/

>>> But yeah, better to not provide the instruction or stack pointers indeed.
>>> At least the instruction pointer gives some system call related information
>>> (from where it is called).
>>
>> Yup - it's nice to have that.
>
> And it would round up the total of data to 8 fields. My main concern would be
> that people try to use it for simplistic security checks and trust it too
> much.

Yeah though even without TOCTOU vulnerability, people could still
write crazy dumb filters :)

>>>> That said, I can imagine filtering on other registers as being useful
>>>> for tentative research.
>>>
>>> They can use ptrace for that.
>>
>> And it will stay research forever.
>
> Speaking from experience, you're probably right. But in our case we really
> want to be able to modify registers too, mostly the args. We use the EIP
> for system call restarting. But that's not in a performance sensitive path
> (one per execve). Modifying the registers in filters is not that useful
> for our case because we can't get copy paths to read-only memory from the
> BPF anyway.

Yeah - this would require the ptrace callout.

>>> What non-argument register would you like to use on x86? I think all
>>> are used up already. All you got left is the segment registers, and
>>> using those seems a bad idea.
>>
>> There are other arches where this would be feasible.
>
> Yes. Like I said:
>>> It also seems a bad idea to promote non-portable BPF filtering programs.
>
>> Why?  If it's possible to make a userland abstraction layer, why do we
>> force the kernel to take on more work?
>
> Non-portable implies that it is not possible to make a userspace abstraction
> layer. Letting the kernel take on slightly more work avoids non-portable
> filter programs. Yes, this is limiting, but I think limiting filters isn't
> a bad idea.

Well I believe it was possible to create a userspace abstraction
layer, but I don't think that matters as much now. The question will
be more around how the final syscall args get laid out and if we need
a syscall_arch identifier. (I think)

>>
>>> If you support modifying arguments and syscall nr then people can keep
>>> doing the XORing trick with BPF. Another advantage of allowing that is
>>> that unsafe old system calls can be replaced with secure ones on the
>>> fly transparently.
>>>
>>> Really, disallowing modifications is much more limiting than not providing
>>> all registers. But allowing modifications is a lot harder to get right
>>> with a register interface.
>>
>> I'm not going to make the change to support BPF making the data
>> mutable or using scratch space as an output vector. If that is
>> something that makes sense to the networking stack, then we could
>> benefit from it, but I don't want to go there.
>
> It doesn't make sense for the networking stack, but it would make BPF
> usable for more use cases when used for system call filtering, like
> that XOR thing. For our jailer it's not very useful because we need
> to copy data to read-only memory. Only other cases where we modify
> data are replacing (v)fork with clone with CLONE_PTRACE set for 2.4
> kernels, and system call restarting once per execve.
>
> I don't have strong feelings about it, but not supporting it is more
> limiting than not providing all registers. That's all.

Agreed, but it is how the engine is.  It's possible to look at adding
it in the future, but I wouldn't want to start out of the gate with
it. It  can have further reaching impact than just seccomp (via the
slow-path).

>> It does mean BPF is per-arch, per syscall-convention, but you know I
>> am fine with that :)  I do think the performance gains could be well
>> worth avoiding any copying.  (Perf gains are the strongest argument I
>> think for your proposal and the thing that would likely lead me to do
>> it.)
>
> Aesthetics is my main argument against using register views.

Fair enough!

>>> So call it once and store the value in a long. Then copy the low half
>>> to the right place and then the upper half when on 64 bits. It may not
>>> look too pretty, but the compiler should be able to optimise almost all
>>> overhead away and end up with 6 (or 12) int copies. Something like this:
>>>
>>> struct bpf_data {
>>>        uint32 syscall_nr;
>>>        uint32 arg_low[MAX_SC_ARGS];
>>>        uint32 arg_high[MAX_SC_ARGS];
>>> };
>>>
>>> void fill_bpf_data(struct task_struct *t, struct pt_regs *r, struct bpf_data *d)
>>> {
>>>        int i;
>>>        unsigned long arg;
>>>
>>>        d->syscall_nr = syscall_get_nr(t, r);
>>>        for (i = 0; i < MAX_SC_ARGS; ++i){
>>>                syscall_get_arguments(t, r, i, 1, &arg);
>>>                d->arg_low[i] = arg;
>>>                d->arg_high[i] = arg >> 32;
>>>        }
>>> }
>>
>> Sure, but it seems weird to keep the arguments high and low not
>> adjacent, but I realize you want an arch-independent interface.
>
> Yes, that was the idea.
>
> You can achieve the same with an adjacent layout, but then it's easier
> to get endianness wrong.
>
>> I guess in that world, you could do this:
>>
>> {
>>   int32_t nr;
>>   uint32_t arg32[MAX_SC_ARGS];
>>   uint32_t arg64[MAX_SC_ARGS];
>>   /* room for future expansion is here */
>> };
>
> Isn't that the same?

Yup - I was pointing out the comment and that your proposal would be
friendly to arbitrary expansion.

>> Yes - per-arch. If you're already doing per-arch fixup, why ius
>> mapping 6 extra registers such a burden?  If the code can't do that in
>> userspace, it is slacking.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>>> Exactly why I'm using user_regs_struct.  I think we've been having
>>>> some cross-talk, but I'm not sure.  The only edge case I can find with
>>>> user_regs_struct across all platforms is the nasty x86 32-bit entry
>>>> from 64-bit personality.  Perhaps someday we can just nuke that path
>>>> :)  But even so, it is tightly constrained by saving the personality
>>>> and compat flag in the filter program metadata and checking it at each
>>>> syscall.
>>>
>>> I think it's a good idea to nuke that path, it seems like a security hole
>>> waiting to happen.
>>
>> Agreed. And yet we can't (yet?).
>
> Apparently unwritten obscure behaviour may not be broken, in case someone
> counts on it. I disagree, because any users can't be sure that compat mode
> is supported anyway, so the behaviour is no different than a 64 bit kernel
> without compat mode. Oh well.

Pretty painful. A big reason why ptrace jails are defense in depth but
not an perfect solution and why I didn't want to merge seccomp and
ptrace directly (by making ptrace-bpf).

>>> If your ABI is too hard to use directly, it won't be used at all.
>>> Any excuse that people won't use this ABI directly is a sign that
>>> it is not good enough.
>>
>> That is blatantly untrue. Have you ever used tcpdump's expression
>> language for filtering packets? Wireshark?
>
> Okay, "at all" was stretching it a bit.
>
>>> And the more complicated you make it, the less likely it is that
>>> anyone will use this.
>>
>> Unless there is a nice library that makes it work well.
>
> I beg you, please don't count on this.
>
> BPF will be used for security sensitive code, you really want to keep it simple
> and easy to use, otherwise you're just encouraging bugs to happen. Using registers
> only adds subtleties for just a tiny performance gain, at best.

Make sense. My goal was a clean, simple to validate implementation in
the kernel with a usable userland API.  It sounds like it'll need to
be more like your proposal though.

>>> It could if you make the data part of the scratch memory. If you put the
>>> data at the top, just after BPF_MEMWORDS, then it's all compatible with
>>> the read-only version. Except the sk_chk_filter() code. But if you ever
>>> want to consolidate with the networking version, then you already need
>>> new non-byteswapping instructions. You can as well add a special modify
>>> instruction too then. Making it very explicit seems better anyway.
>>
>> I am not going to go this route right now.  If you want to, be my
>> guest. We can add BPF instructions later, but I am not going down that
>> rabbit hole now.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> Using BPF for system call filtering changes its very nature already.
>>
>> No it doesn't.  user_regs_struct becomes another data protocol.
>
> I can't decide whether I agree or disagree. In a way it makes perfect sense,
> while yet something inside me screams it's not the same at all.

Then my original design succeeded :)

>>> I must say that until your patch came up, I've never heard of BPF filters
>>> before. I think I'm going to use it in our ptrace jailer for network
>>> filtering, if it's possible to get the peer address for normal TCP/UDP
>>> sockets. Documentation is quite vague.
>>
>> Cool!
>
> I might be the first one to use it on regular sockets instead of raw or
> packet sockets though. I fear I'll only get the packet data and no IP
> header. But I haven't tried it yet.
>
>>> You could also do the BPF filtering later in the system call entry path
>>> when the arguments are passed directly, but then it's harder to interact
>>> well with ptrace.
>>
>> Where? Interpose it into each system call?  The later I put it, the
>> less attack surface reduction I get.  The whole point of this
>> framework is to reduce the kernel's attack surface by doing minimal
>> kernel-side work before making a policy decision.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Also, I've already gone the ftrace route. As I said in the writeup, I
>> don't think it is the right path for this sort of functionality.
>
> Indeed.
>
>>> Ideally, the BPF filter should be able to deny the system call with a
>>> specific error code, deny the call and kill the task, have a way to
>>> defer to ptrace, and a way to allow it.
>>
>> Not happening (by my hand :).  I'm not changing seccomp to allow it to
>> cause a system call to fail with an error code. I'll add support for
>> tracehook integration if this patch can get merged, but I'm not going
>> to change the basic semantics of seccomp.
>
> I guess the difference is that you have a somewhat controlled environment
> and aren't trying to run arbitrary programs in your jail. Because standard
> programs are trying to do stuff they don't really have to all the time,
> and killing them for each silly offence would make the jail useless.
>
> It is also crucial in handling new system calls. Glibc does that all the
> time, it tries the new version, and if it's not supported, it falls back
> to the old one. That's why we return ENOSYS for denied system calls and
> that seems to work pretty well.
>
> I guess it would be okay if BPF could somehow defer to ptrace instead of
> killing. But without that, this BPF filtering is useless for our generic
> jail.
>
> I don't know anything about tracehooks, is that related to ftrace?

Roughly, tracehook == ptrace.  I was using it as shorthand for ptrace
integration.  There's more arch-related goo.

lxr.linux.no/linux+v3.2.1/include/linux/tracehook.h#L22

By using seccomp filter as a feeder for ptrace, it become more
reasonable to attempt to implement some of the fixes for cases where a
race results in a process executing what it wants.  However, I still
think ptrace will always be a security nightmare so I like for
seccomp+bpf to standalone with optional ptrace support.

>> The nice thing is, if we
>> reserve return values, this functionality can be layered on later
>> without it causing any ABI breakage and with proper consideration
>> independent of whether the basic functionality gets merged.
>
> That seems like a good idea.

I'll make that explicit in the next patch.

>> Then, if
>> you want retool the entire seccomp path on all architectures to allow
>> graceful system call failure, it'd be totally doable.
>
> It's trivial if ENOSYS is always returned, then you just change the syscall
> nr (that's what I do now). But specific return values are indeed harder
> and maybe not worth the trouble.
>
> If this gets in and no one else does it, I'll try to add ptrace support
> so they work nicely together.

Sounds good!  I have a tentative patch for this already too, so
hopefully we could come to a nice solution!  I'd like ptrace support
for effective, deployed "learning" mode and soft-enforcement of
policies in addition to exploring more advanced policy logic.  But
that's all future :)

Thanks!
will
--
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/