Re: Edited seccomp.2 man page for review [v2]

From: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
Date: Tue Dec 30 2014 - 14:45:31 EST

Next message: Nicholas Mc Guire: "[PATCH v2] ath10k: fixup wait_for_completion_timeout return handling"
Previous message: Scott Wood: "Re: [PATCH] srcu: Isolate srcu sections using CONFIG_SRCU"
In reply to: Kees Cook: "Re: Edited seccomp.2 man page for review [v2]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[CC += Will Drewry; Will, maybe you have input on a point below
(search for your name in the message text)]

Kees,

Thanks for the quick response.

On 12/30/2014 06:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
> <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Kees, (and all),
>>
>> Thanks for your comments on the previous draft of the seccomp(2)
>> man page and (once again) my apologies for the slow follow-up.
>>
>> I have done some further editing of the page. Could you check
>> the revised version below. I have added a number of FIXMEs
>> for points where I'd either like you to check new text that I
>> added (in case it contains errors) or where I hope you can
>> provide answers to questions relating to details that may need
>> clarifying in the page.
>>
>> I've appended the revised page at the foot of this mail. You can also
>> find the branch holding this page in Git at:
>> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=draft_seccomp
>>
>> Notable changes from the previous draft:
>> * Several new error cases added under ERRORS
>> * New subsection on Seccomp-specific BPF details
>> * Add some detail in discussion of 'siginfo_t' fields
>> * Tweaked comments on BPF program in EXAMPLE section
>> * Added various FIXMEs
>>
>> I also have one API quibble, regarding the name of the
>> SYS_SECCOMP constant; see below.
>>
>> Feedback as inline comments to the below would be great!
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> .\" Copyright (C) 2014 Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> .\" and Copyright (C) 2012 Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> .\" and Copyright (C) 2008, 2014 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@xxxxxxxxx>
>> .\"
>> .\" %%%LICENSE_START(VERBATIM)
>> .\" Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this
>> .\" manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are
>> .\" preserved on all copies.
>> .\"
>> .\" Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this
>> .\" manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the
>> .\" entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a
>> .\" permission notice identical to this one.
>> .\"
>> .\" Since the Linux kernel and libraries are constantly changing, this
>> .\" manual page may be incorrect or out-of-date. The author(s) assume no
>> .\" responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from
>> .\" the use of the information contained herein. The author(s) may not
>> .\" have taken the same level of care in the production of this manual,
>> .\" which is licensed free of charge, as they might when working
>> .\" professionally.
>> .\"
>> .\" Formatted or processed versions of this manual, if unaccompanied by
>> .\" the source, must acknowledge the copyright and authors of this work.
>> .\" %%%LICENSE_END
>> .\"
>> .TH SECCOMP 2 2014-06-23 "Linux" "Linux Programmer's Manual"
>> .SH NAME
>> seccomp \- operate on Secure Computing state of the process
>> .SH SYNOPSIS
>> .nf
>> .B #include <linux/seccomp.h>
>> .B #include <linux/filter.h>
>> .B #include <linux/audit.h>
>> .B #include <linux/signal.h>
>> .B #include <sys/ptrace.h>
>> .\" Kees Cook noted: Anything that uses SECCOMP_RET_TRACE returns will
>> .\" need <sys/ptrace.h>
>>
>> .BI "int seccomp(unsigned int " operation ", unsigned int " flags \
>> ", void *" args );
>> .fi
>> .SH DESCRIPTION
>> The
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> system call operates on the Secure Computing (seccomp) state of the
>> calling process.
>>
>> Currently, Linux supports the following
>> .IR operation
>> values:
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_STRICT
>> The only system calls that the calling thread is permitted to make are
>> .BR read (2),
>> .BR write (2),
>> .BR _exit (2),
>> and
>> .BR sigreturn (2).
>> Other system calls result in the delivery of a
>> .BR SIGKILL
>> signal.
>> Strict secure computing mode is useful for number-crunching
>> applications that may need to execute untrusted byte code, perhaps
>> obtained by reading from a pipe or socket.
>>
>> This operation is available only if the kernel is configured with
>> .BR CONFIG_SECCOMP
>> enabled.
>>
>> The value of
>> .IR flags
>> must be 0, and
>> .IR args
>> must be NULL.
>>
>> This operation is functionally identical to the call:
>>
>> prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT);
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER
>> The system calls allowed are defined by a pointer to a Berkeley Packet
>> Filter (BPF) passed via
>> .IR args .
>> This argument is a pointer to a
>> .IR "struct\ sock_fprog" ;
>> it can be designed to filter arbitrary system calls and system call
>> arguments.
>> If the filter is invalid,
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> fails, returning
>> .BR EINVAL
>> in
>> .IR errno .
>>
>> If
>> .BR fork (2)
>> or
>> .BR clone (2)
>> is allowed by the filter, any child processes will be constrained to
>> the same system call filters as the parent.
>> If
>> .BR execve (2)
>> is allowed,
>> the existing filters will be preserved across a call to
>> .BR execve (2).
>>
>> In order to use the
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER
>> operation, either the caller must have the
>> .BR CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>> capability, or the thread must already have the
>> .I no_new_privs
>> bit set.
>> If that bit was not already set by an ancestor of this thread,
>> the thread must make the following call:
>>
>> prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1);
>>
>> Otherwise, the
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER
>> operation will fail and return
>> .BR EACCES
>> in
>> .IR errno .
>> This requirement ensures that an unprivileged process cannot apply
>> a malicious filter and then invoke a set-user-ID or
>> other privileged program using
>> .BR execve (2),
>> thus potentially compromising that program.
>> (Such a malicious filter might, for example, cause an attempt to use
>> .BR setuid (2)
>> to set the caller's user IDs to non-zero values to instead
>> return 0 without actually making the system call.
>> Thus, the program might be tricked into retaining superuser privileges
>> in circumstances where it is possible to influence it to do
>> dangerous things because it did not actually drop privileges.)
>>
>> If
>> .BR prctl (2)
>> or
>> .BR seccomp (2)
>> is allowed by the attached filter, further filters may be added.
>> This will increase evaluation time, but allows for further reduction of
>> the attack surface during execution of a thread.
>>
>> The
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER
>> operation is available only if the kernel is configured with
>> .BR CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
>> enabled.
>>
>> When
>> .IR flags
>> is 0, this operation is functionally identical to the call:
>>
>> prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, args);
>>
>> The recognized
>> .IR flags
>> are:
>> .RS
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC
>> When adding a new filter, synchronize all other threads of the calling
>> process to the same seccomp filter tree.
>> A "filter tree" is the ordered list of filters attached to a thread.
>> (Attaching identical filters in separate
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> calls results in different filters from this perspective.)
>>
>> If any thread cannot synchronize to the same filter tree,
>> the call will not attach the new seccomp filter,
>> and will fail, returning the first thread ID found that cannot synchronize.
>> Synchronization will fail if another thread in the same process is in
>> .BR SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT
>> or if it has attached new seccomp filters to itself,
>> diverging from the calling thread's filter tree.
>> .RE
>> .SS Filters
>> When adding filters via
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER ,
>> .IR args
>> points to a filter program:
>>
>> .in +4n
>> .nf
>> struct sock_fprog {
>> unsigned short len; /* Number of BPF instructions */
>> struct sock_filter *filter; /* Pointer to array of
>> BPF instructions */
>> };
>> .fi
>> .in
>>
>> Each program must contain one or more BPF instructions:
>>
>> .in +4n
>> .nf
>> struct sock_filter { /* Filter block */
>> __u16 code; /* Actual filter code */
>> __u8 jt; /* Jump true */
>> __u8 jf; /* Jump false */
>> __u32 k; /* Generic multiuse field */
>> };
>> .fi
>> .in
>>
>> .\" FIXME I reworded/enhanced the following sentence. Is it okay?
>> When executing the instructions, the BPF program operates on the
>> system call information made available (i.e., use the
>> .BR BPF_ABS
>> addressing mode) as a buffer of the following form:
>
> That looks correct to me, yes.

Okay. Thanks.

>> .in +4n
>> .nf
>> struct seccomp_data {
>> int nr; /* System call number */
>> __u32 arch; /* AUDIT_ARCH_* value
>> (see <linux/audit.h>) */
>> __u64 instruction_pointer; /* CPU instruction pointer */
>> __u64 args[6]; /* Up to 6 system call arguments */
>> };
>> .fi
>> .in
>>
>> A seccomp filter returns a 32-bit value consisting of two parts:
>> the most significant 16 bits
>> (corresponding to the mask defined by the constant
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_ACTION )
>> contain one of the "action" values listed below;
>> the least significant 16-bits (defined by the constant
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_DATA )
>> are "data" to be associated with this return value.
>>
>> If multiple filters exist, they are all executed,
>> in reverse order of their addition to the filter tree
>> (i.e., the most recently installed filter is executed first).
>> The return value for the evaluation of a given system call is the first-seen
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_ACTION
>> value of highest precedence (along with its accompanying data)
>> returned by execution of all of the filters.
>>
>> In decreasing order of precedence,
>> the values that may be returned by a seccomp filter are:
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_KILL
>> This value results in the process exiting immediately
>> without executing the system call.
>> The process terminates as though killed by a
>> .B SIGSYS
>> signal
>> .RI ( not
>> .BR SIGKILL ).
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_TRAP
>> This value results in the kernel sending a
>> .BR SIGSYS
>> signal to the triggering process without executing the system call.
>> Various fields will be set in the
>> .I siginfo_t
>> structure (see
>> .BR sigaction (2))
>> associated with signal:
>> .RS
>> .IP * 3
>> .I si_signo
>> will contain
>> .BR SIGSYS .
>> .IP *
>> .IR si_call_addr
>> will show the address of the system call instruction.
>> .IP *
>> .IR si_syscall
>> and
>> .IR si_arch
>> will indicate which system call was attempted.
>> .IP *
>> .I si_code
>> .\" FIXME Why is the constant thus named? All of the other 'si_code'
>> .\" constants are prefixed 'SI_'. Why the inconsistency?
>> will contain
>> .BR SYS_SECCOMP .
>
> Only certain reserved values have the SI_ prefix. All the
> signal-specific values have their signal name as the prefix. See ILL_*
> FPE_* SEGV_* BUS_* TRAP_* CLD_* POLL_* and SYS_*. I see these in
> /usr/include/asm-generic/siginfo.h

Ahh -- yes, of course. Thanks.

>> .IP *
>> .I si_errno
>> will contain the
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_DATA
>> portion of the filter return value.
>> .RE
>> .IP
>> The program counter will be as though the system call happened
>> (i.e., it will not point to the system call instruction).
>> The return value register will contain an architecture\-dependent value;
>> if resuming execution, set it to something sensible.
>> .\" FIXME Regarding the preceding line, can you give an example(s)
>> .\" of "something sensible"? (Depending on the answer, maybe it
>> .\" might be useful to add some text on this point.)
>
> This means sensible in the context of the syscall made, or the desired
> behavior. For example, setting the return value to ELOOP for something
> like a "bind" syscall isn't very sensible.

Okay -- I did s/sensible/appropriate for the system call/

>> .\"
>> .\" FIXME Please check:
>> .\" In an attempt to make the text clearer, I changed
>> .\" "replacing it with" to "setting the return value register to"
>> .\" Okay?
>> (The architecture dependency is because setting the return value register to
>> .BR ENOSYS
>> could overwrite some useful information.)
>
> Well, the arch dependency is really because _how_ to change the
> register, and the register itself, is different between architectures.
> (i.e. which ptrace call is needed, and which register is being
> changed.) The overwriting of useful information is certainly true too,
> though.

So, revert to the previous wording? Or do you have a suggested
better wording?

>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO
>> This value results in the
>> .B SECCOMP_RET_DATA
>> portion of the filter's return value being passed to user space as the
>> .IR errno
>> value without executing the system call.
>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_TRACE
>> When returned, this value will cause the kernel to attempt to notify a
>> .BR ptrace (2)-based
>> tracer prior to executing the system call.
>> If there is no tracer present,
>> the system call is not executed and returns a failure status with
>> .I errno
>> set to
>> .BR ENOSYS .
>>
>> A tracer will be notified if it requests
>> .BR PTRACE_O_TRACESECCOMP
>> using
>> .IR ptrace(PTRACE_SETOPTIONS) .
>> The tracer will be notified of a
>> .BR PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP
>> and the
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_DATA
>> portion of the filter's return value will be available to the tracer via
>> .BR PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG .
>>
>> The tracer can skip the system call by changing the system call number
>> to \-1.
>> Alternatively, the tracer can change the system call
>> requested by changing the system call to a valid system call number.
>> If the tracer asks to skip the system call, then the system call will
>> appear to return the value that the tracer puts in the return value register.
>>
>> The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is notified.
>> (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes
>> .B "must not"
>> allow use of
>> .BR ptrace (2)\(emeven
>> of other
>> sandboxed processes\(emwithout extreme care;
>> .\" FIXME Below, I think it would be helpful to add some words after
>> .\" "to escape", as in "to escape [what?]" I suppose the wording
>> .\" would be something like "to escape the seccomp sandbox mechanism"
>> .\" but perhaps you have a better wording.
>> ptracers can use this mechanism to escape.)
>
> Yeah, that could be further clarified to "... use this mechanism to
> escape from the seccomp sandbox." How does that sound?

Good. Changed.

>> .TP
>> .BR SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW
>> This value results in the system call being executed.
>> .SH RETURN VALUE
>> On success,
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> returns 0.
>> On error, if
>> .BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC
>> was used,
>> the return value is the ID of the thread
>> that caused the synchronization failure.
>> (This ID is a kernel thread ID of the type returned by
>> .BR clone (2)
>> and
>> .BR gettid (2).)
>> On other errors, \-1 is returned, and
>> .IR errno
>> is set to indicate the cause of the error.
>> .SH ERRORS
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> can fail for the following reasons:
>> .TP
>> .BR EACCESS
>> The caller did not have the
>> .BR CAP_SYS_ADMIN
>> capability, or had not set
>> .IR no_new_privs
>> before using
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER .
>> .TP
>> .BR EFAULT
>> .IR args
>> was not a valid address.
>> .TP
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .IR operation
>> is unknown; or
>> .IR flags
>> are invalid for the given
>> .IR operation .
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following
>> .TP
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .I operation
>> included
>> .BR BPF_ABS ,
>> but the specified offset was not aligned to a 32-bit boundary or exceeded
>> .IR "sizeof(struct\ seccomp_data)" .
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following
>> .TP
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .\" See kernel/seccomp.c::seccomp_may_assign_mode() in 3.18 sources
>> A secure computing mode has already been set, and
>> .I operation
>> differs from the existing setting.
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following
>> .TP
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .\" See stub kernel/seccomp.c::seccomp_set_mode_filter() in 3.18 sources
>> .I operation
>> specified
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER ,
>> but the kernel was not built with
>> .B CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
>> enabled.
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following
>> .TP
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .I operation
>> specified
>> .BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER ,
>> but the filter program pointed to by
>> .I args
>> was not valid or the length of the filter program was zero or exceeded
>> .B BPF_MAXINSNS
>> (4096) instructions.
>> .BR EINVAL
>> .TP
>> .BR ENOMEM
>> Out of memory.
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following
>> .TP
>> .BR ENOMEM
>> .\" ENOMEM in kernel/seccomp.c::seccomp_attach_filter() in 3.18 sources
>> The total length of all filter programs attached
>> to the calling thread would exceed
>> .B MAX_INSNS_PER_PATH
>> (32768) instructions.
>> Note that for the purposes of calculating this limit,
>> each already existing filter program incurs an
>> overhead penalty of 4 instructions.
>> .TP
>> .BR ESRCH
>> Another thread caused a failure during thread sync, but its ID could not
>> be determined.
>> .SH VERSIONS
>> The
>> .BR seccomp()
>> system call first appeared in Linux 3.17.
>> .\" FIXME . Add glibc version
>> .SH CONFORMING TO
>> The
>> .BR seccomp()
>> system call is a nonstandard Linux extension.
>> .SH NOTES
>> .BR seccomp ()
>> provides a superset of the functionality provided by the
>> .BR prctl (2)
>> .BR PR_SET_SECCOMP
>> operation (which does not support
>> .IR flags ).
>> .\" FIXME Please review the following new subsection {{{
>> .SS Seccomp-specific BPF details
>> Note the following BPF details specific to seccomp filters:
>> .IP * 3
>> The
>> .B BPF_H
>> and
>> .B BPF_B
>> size modifiers are not supported: all operations must load and store
>> (4-byte) words
>> .RB ( BPF_W ).
>> .IP *
>> To access the contents of the
>> .I seccomp_data
>> buffer, use the
>> .B BPF_ABS
>> addressing mode modifier.
>> .\" FIXME What is the significance of the line
>> .\" ftest->code = BPF_LDX | BPF_W | BPF_ABS;
>> .\" in kernel/seccomp.c::seccomp_check_filter()?
>
> This is converting an accumulator load (BPF_LD) into a index load
> (BPF_LDX). I think this is to avoid addressing modes 1 and 2, but Will
> may remember more here. The LD|W|ABS structure is very common, so I
> think this was a way to accept that in the filter, but change it into
> a more limited command.

Will, could you comment?

>> .IP *
>> The
>> .B BPF_LEN
>> addressing mode modifier yields an immediate mode operand
>> whose value is the size of the
>> .IR seccomp_data
>> buffer.
>> .\" FIXME Any other seccomp-specific BPF details that should be added here?
>> .\"
>> .\" FIXME End of new subsection for review }}}
>
> All the rest of the FIXMEs above (excepting the standing glibc one)
> looks correct to me.

Okay. Thanks.

>> .SH EXAMPLE
>> The program below accepts four or more arguments.
>> The first three arguments are a system call number,
>> a numeric architecture identifier, and an error number.
>> The program uses these values to construct a BPF filter
>> that is used at run time to perform the following checks:
>> .IP [1] 4
>> If the program is not running on the specified architecture,
>> the BPF filter causes system calls to fail with the error
>> .BR ENOSYS .
>> .IP [2]
>> If the program attempts to execute the system call with the specified number,
>> the BPF filter causes the system call to fail, with
>> .I errno
>> being set to the specified error number.
>> .PP
>> The remaining command-line arguments specify
>> the pathname and additional arguments of a program
>> that the example program should attempt to execute using
>> .BR execve (3)
>> (a library function that employs the
>> .BR execve (2)
>> system call).
>> Some example runs of the program are shown below.
>>
>> First, we display the architecture that we are running on (x86-64)
>> and then construct a shell function that looks up system call
>> numbers on this architecture:
>>
>> .nf
>> .in +4n
>> $ \fBuname -m\fP
>> x86_64
>> $ \fBsyscall_nr() {
>> cat /usr/src/linux/arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | \\
>> awk '$2 != "x32" && $3 == "'$1'" { print $1 }'
>> }\fP
>> .in
>> .fi
>>
>> When the BPF filter rejects a system call (case [2] above),
>> it causes the system call to fail with the error number
>> specified on the command line.
>> In the experiments shown here, we'll use error number 99:
>>
>> .nf
>> .in +4n
>> $ \fBerrno 99\fP
>> EADDRNOTAVAIL 99 Cannot assign requested address
>> .in
>> .fi
>>
>> In the following example, we attempt to run the command
>> .BR whoami (1),
>> but the BPF filter rejects the
>> .BR execve (2)
>> system call, so that the command is not even executed:
>>
>> .nf
>> .in +4n
>> $ \fBsyscall_nr execve\fP
>> 59
>> $ \fB./a.out\fP
>> Usage: ./a.out <syscall_nr> <arch> <errno> <prog> [<args>]
>> Hint for <arch>: AUDIT_ARCH_I386: 0x40000003
>> AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64: 0xC000003E
>> $ \fB./a.out 59 0xC000003E 99 /bin/whoami\fP
>> execv: Cannot assign requested address
>> .in
>> .fi
>>
>> In the next example, the BPF filter rejects the
>> .BR write (2)
>> system call, so that, although it is successfully started, the
>> .BR whoami (1)
>> command is not able to write output:
>>
>> .nf
>> .in +4n
>> $ \fBsyscall_nr write\fP
>> 1
>> $ \fB./a.out 1 0xC000003E 99 /bin/whoami\fP
>> .in
>> .fi
>>
>> In the final example,
>> the BPF filter rejects a system call that is not used by the
>> .BR whoami (1)
>> command, so it is able to successfully execute and produce output:
>>
>> .nf
>> .in +4n
>> $ \fBsyscall_nr preadv\fP
>> 295
>> $ \fB./a.out 295 0xC000003E 99 /bin/whoami\fP
>> cecilia
>> .in
>> .fi
>> .SS Program source
>> .fi
>> .nf
>> #include <errno.h>
>> #include <stddef.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>> #include <linux/audit.h>
>> #include <linux/filter.h>
>> #include <linux/seccomp.h>
>> #include <sys/prctl.h>
>>
>> static int
>> install_filter(int syscall_nr, int t_arch, int f_errno)
>> {
>> .\" FIXME In the BPF program below, you use '+' to build the instructions.
>> .\" However, most other BPF example code I see uses '|'. While I
>> .\" assume it's equivalent (i.e., the bit fields are nonoverlapping),
>> .\" was there a reason to use '+' rather than '|'? (To me, the
>> .\" latter is a little clearer in its intent.)
>
> Ah, no, "|" should be used, good catch.

Okay -- all instances of '+' changed to '|'

>> .\"
>> .\" FIXME I expanded comments [0], [1], [2], [3], [4] a little.
>> .\" Are they okay? */
>
> Yup, these look good to me.

Okay. Thanks.

>
>> .\"
>> struct sock_filter filter[] = {
>> /* [0] Load architecture from 'seccomp_data' buffer into
>> accumulator */
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_LD + BPF_W + BPF_ABS,
>> (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, arch))),
>>
>> /* [1] Jump forward 4 instructions if architecture does not
>> match 't_arch' */
>> BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP + BPF_JEQ + BPF_K, t_arch, 0, 4),
>>
>> /* [2] Load system call number from 'seccomp_data' buffer into
>> accumulator */
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_LD + BPF_W + BPF_ABS,
>> (offsetof(struct seccomp_data, nr))),
>>
>> /* [3] Jump forward 1 instruction if system call number
>> does not match 'syscall_nr' */
>> BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP + BPF_JEQ + BPF_K, syscall_nr, 0, 1),
>>
>> /* [4] Matching architecture and system call: don't execute
>> the system call, and return 'f_errno' in 'errno' */
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET + BPF_K,
>> SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO | (f_errno & SECCOMP_RET_DATA)),
>>
>> /* [5] Destination of system call number mismatch: allow other
>> system calls */
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET + BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW),
>>
>> /* [6] Destination of architecture mismatch: kill process */
>> BPF_STMT(BPF_RET + BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL),
>> };
>>
>> struct sock_fprog prog = {
>> .len = (unsigned short) (sizeof(filter) / sizeof(filter[0])),
>> .filter = filter,
>> };
>>
>> if (seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, 0, &prog)) {
>> perror("seccomp");
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> int
>> main(int argc, char **argv)
>> {
>> if (argc < 5) {
>> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: "
>> "%s <syscall_nr> <arch> <errno> <prog> [<args>]\\n"
>> "Hint for <arch>: AUDIT_ARCH_I386: 0x%X\\n"
>> " AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64: 0x%X\\n"
>> "\\n", argv[0], AUDIT_ARCH_I386, AUDIT_ARCH_X86_64);
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>>
>> if (prctl(PR_SET_NO_NEW_PRIVS, 1, 0, 0, 0)) {
>> perror("prctl");
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>>
>> if (install_filter(strtol(argv[1], NULL, 0),
>> strtol(argv[2], NULL, 0),
>> strtol(argv[3], NULL, 0)))
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>>
>> execv(argv[4], &argv[4]);
>> perror("execv");
>> exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
>> }
>> .fi
>> .SH SEE ALSO
>> .BR prctl (2),
>> .BR ptrace (2),
>> .BR signal (7),
>> .BR socket (7)
>> .sp
>> The kernel source files
>> .IR Documentation/networking/filter.txt
>> and
>> .IR Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt .
>> .sp
>> McCanne, S. and Jacobson, V. (1992)
>> .IR "The BSD Packet Filter: A New Architecture for User-level Packet Capture" ,
>> Proceedings of the USENIX Winter 1993 Conference
>> .UR http://www.tcpdump.org/papers/bpf-usenix93.pdf
>> .UE
>
> Thanks for the additional details and clarifications!

Thanks. We're getting close now.

Cheers,

Michael

--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
--
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/

Next message: Nicholas Mc Guire: "[PATCH v2] ath10k: fixup wait_for_completion_timeout return handling"
Previous message: Scott Wood: "Re: [PATCH] srcu: Isolate srcu sections using CONFIG_SRCU"
In reply to: Kees Cook: "Re: Edited seccomp.2 man page for review [v2]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]