Re: [PATCH v6] seccomp, ptrace: add support for dumping seccomp filters

[Tycho Andersen]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 12:34:26PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 12:25 PM, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> >On 10/07/2015 11:46 AM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >>This patch adds support for dumping a process' (classic BPF) seccomp
> >>filters via ptrace.
> >>
> >>PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER allows the tracer to dump the user's classic BPF
> >>seccomp filters. addr should be an integer which represents the ith seccomp
> >>filter (0 is the most recently installed filter). data should be a struct
> >>sock_filter * with enough room for the ith filter, or NULL, in which case
> >>the filter is not saved. The return value for this command is the number of
> >>BPF instructions the program represents, or negative in the case of errors.
> >>A command specific error is ENOENT, which indicates that there is no ith
> >>filter in this seccomp tree.
> >>
> >>A caveat with this approach is that there is no way to get explicitly at
> >>the heirarchy of seccomp filters, and users need to memcmp() filters to
> >>decide which are inherited. This means that a task which installs two of
> >>the same filter can potentially confuse users of this interface.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Serge E. Hallyn <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>CC: Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>---
> >>  include/linux/seccomp.h     | 11 +++++++++
> >>  include/uapi/linux/ptrace.h |  2 ++
> >>  kernel/ptrace.c             |  5 ++++
> >>  kernel/seccomp.c            | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>  4 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> >>index f426503..8861b5b 100644
> >>--- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
> >>+++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
> >>@@ -95,4 +95,15 @@ static inline void get_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
> >>      return;
> >>  }
> >>  #endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER */
> >>+
> >>+#if defined(CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER) && defined(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE)
> >>+extern long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, long n,
> >>+                   void __user *data);
> >>+#else
> >>+static inline long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task,
> >>+                      long n, void __user *data)
> >>+{
> >>+    return -EINVAL;
> >
> >Nit: -ENOTSUP would probably be the better choice? -EINVAL might just
> >be confusing to users? (Would be unclear to them whether there's actual
> >support of dumping or whether it's just an invalid argument.)
> >
> >>+}
> >>+#endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER && CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE */
> >>  #endif /* _LINUX_SECCOMP_H */
> >...
> >>diff --git a/kernel/ptrace.c b/kernel/ptrace.c
> >>index 787320d..b760bae 100644
> >>--- a/kernel/ptrace.c
> >>+++ b/kernel/ptrace.c
> >>@@ -1016,6 +1016,11 @@ int ptrace_request(struct task_struct *child, long request,
> >>          break;
> >>      }
> >>  #endif
> >>+
> >>+    case PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER:
> >>+        ret = seccomp_get_filter(child, addr, datavp);
> >>+        break;
> >>+
> >>      default:
> >>          break;
> >>      }
> >>diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >>index 06858a7..c8a4564 100644
> >>--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> >>+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >>@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ static struct seccomp_filter *seccomp_prepare_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> >>  {
> >>      struct seccomp_filter *sfilter;
> >>      int ret;
> >>+    bool save_orig = config_enabled(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE);
> >>
> >>      if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> >>          return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >>@@ -370,7 +371,7 @@ static struct seccomp_filter *seccomp_prepare_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> >>          return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >>
> >>      ret = bpf_prog_create_from_user(&sfilter->prog, fprog,
> >>-                    seccomp_check_filter, false);
> >>+                    seccomp_check_filter, save_orig);
> >>      if (ret < 0) {
> >>          kfree(sfilter);
> >>          return ERR_PTR(ret);
> >>@@ -867,3 +868,57 @@ long prctl_set_seccomp(unsigned long seccomp_mode, char __user *filter)
> >>      /* prctl interface doesn't have flags, so they are always zero. */
> >>      return do_seccomp(op, 0, uargs);
> >>  }
> >>+
> >>+#if defined(CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER) && defined(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE)
> >>+long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, long n, void __user *data)
> >>+{
> >>+    struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> >>+    struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
> >>+    long ret;
> >>+
> >>+    if (n < 0)
> >>+        return -EINVAL;
> >
> >I would probably give 'n' a better name, maybe 'filter_off' to denote an
> >offset in the task's filter list?
> >
> >So, it's called as seccomp_get_filter(child, addr, datavp), and addr is
> >an unsigned long in ptrace_request(). Any reasons why making this 'long n'
> >with adding this above check?
> >
> >>+    spin_lock_irq(&current->sighand->siglock);
> >>+    if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
> >
> >The capability check should probably happen before taking the task's spinlock.
> >
> >>+        current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
> 
> Should this rather be: current->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ?
> So that you bail out when seccomp is not in use?

It's an or, so it should bail when seccomp is not disabled, i.e. when
seccomp is enabled.

Tycho
--
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/