Re: [PATCH v7 1/6] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace

[Tycho Andersen]

On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 06:24:14PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 07:28:33AM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 04:58:05PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:48:39PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 02:31:24PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > > I have to say, I'm vaguely nervous about changing the semantics here
> > > > > for passing back the fd as the return code from the seccomp() syscall.
> > > > > Alternatives seem less appealing, though: changing the meaning of the
> > > > > uargs parameter when SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER is set, for
> > > > > example. Hmm.
> > > > 
> > > > From my perspective we can drop this whole thing. The only thing I'll
> > > > ever use is the ptrace version. Someone at some point (I don't
> > > > remember who, maybe stgraber) suggested this version would be useful
> > > > as well.
> > > 
> > > So I think we want to have the ability to get an fd via seccomp().
> > > Especially, if we all we worry about are weird semantics. When we
> > > discussed this we knew the whole patchset was going to be weird. :)
> > > 
> > > This is a seccomp feature so seccomp should - if feasible - equip you
> > > with everything to use it in a meaningful way without having to go
> > > through a different kernel api. I know ptrace and seccomp are
> > > already connected but I still find this cleaner. :)
> > > 
> > > Another thing is that the container itself might be traced for some
> > > reason while you still might want to get an fd out.
> > 
> > Sure, I don't see the problem here.
> 
> How'd you to PTRACE_ATTACH in that case?

Oh, you mean if someone has *ptrace*'d the task, and a third party
wants to get a seccomp fd? I think "too bad" is the answer; I don't
really mind not supporting this case.

> Anyway, the whole point is as we've discusses in the other thread we
> really want a one-syscall-only, purely-seccomp() based way of getting
> the fd. There are multiple options to get the fd even when you block
> sendmsg()/socket() whatever and there's no good reason to only be able
> to get the fd via a three-syscall-ptrace dance. :)

Ok, I'll leave these bits in then for v8.

Tycho