linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v8 5/9] seccomp: split mode set routines

To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/9] seccomp: split mode set routines
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 11:07:51 -0700
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@redhat.com>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Julien Tinnes <jln@chromium.org>, David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <CAGXu5jL17k6=GXju6x+eLU20FMwBHhnuRiHoQD1Bzj_EmpiKjg@mail.gmail.com>
List-archive: <http://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?Subject=help>
List-id: linux-mips <linux-mips.eddie.linux-mips.org>
List-owner: <mailto:ralf@linux-mips.org>
List-post: <mailto:linux-mips@linux-mips.org>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=subscribe%20linux-mips>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:ecartis@linux-mips.org?subject=unsubscribe%20linux-mips>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1403642893-23107-1-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <1403642893-23107-6-git-send-email-keescook@chromium.org> <20140625135121.GB7892@redhat.com> <CAGXu5jJkFxh4K=40xuh6tu3kUf4oJM8Dry+4upBdRieW3FNLgw@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrUBNmLnpa+LM91om2RSpR6SjupP-EdefzhU1Me4nv3Dfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAGXu5j+J11zJnuFR8bYKAXizAHhCx4R+uJE_QH6zC3q2udkpaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALCETrVrs8sb19+UUqyFEpAFzTih5dkAwn-WpQjfgPcPJMpP5g@mail.gmail.com> <20140625173245.GA17695@redhat.com> <CALCETrUc65H+fn6dtMdYnB_xR39wcmgDdTbdR3fFRjyrndJhgA@mail.gmail.com> <20140625175136.GA18185@redhat.com> <CAGXu5jL17k6=GXju6x+eLU20FMwBHhnuRiHoQD1Bzj_EmpiKjg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> > On 06/25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Write the filter, then smp_mb (or maybe a weaker barrier is okay),
>>> >> then set the bit.
>>> >
>>> > Yes, exactly, this is what I meant. Plas rmb() in __secure_computing().
>>> >
>>> > But I still can't understand the rest of your discussion about the
>>> > ordering we need ;)
>>>
>>> Let me try again from scratch.
>>>
>>> Currently there are three relevant variables: TIF_SECCOMP,
>>> seccomp.mode, and seccomp.filter.  __secure_computing needs
>>> seccomp.mode and seccomp.filter to be in sync, and it wants (but
>>> doesn't really need) TIF_SECCOMP to be in sync as well.
>>>
>>> My suggestion is to rearrange it a bit.  Move mode into seccomp.filter
>>> (so that filter == NULL implies no seccomp) and don't check
>
> This would require that we reimplement mode 1 seccomp via mode 2
> filters. Which isn't too hard, but may add complexity.
>
>>> TIF_SECCOMP in secure_computing.  Then turning on seccomp is entirely
>>> atomic except for the fact that the seccomp hooks won't be called if
>>> filter != NULL but !TIF_SECCOMP.  This removes all ordering
>>> requirements.
>>
>> Ah, got it, thanks. Perhaps I missed somehing, but to me this looks like
>> unnecessary complication at first glance.
>>
>> We alredy have TIF_SECCOMP, we need it anyway, and we should only care
>> about the case when this bit is actually set, so that we can race with
>> the 1st call of __secure_computing().
>>
>> Otherwise we are fine: we can miss the new filter anyway, ->mode can't
>> be changed it is already nonzero.
>>
>>> Alternatively, __secure_computing could still BUG_ON(!seccomp.filter).
>>> In that case, filter needs to be set before TIF_SECCOMP is set, but
>>> that's straightforward.
>>
>> Yep. And this is how seccomp_assign_mode() already works? It is called
>> after we change ->filter chain, it changes ->mode before set(TIF_SECCOMP)
>> just it lacks a barrier.
>
> Right, I think the best solution is to add the barrier. I was
> concerned that adding the read barrier in secure_computing would have
> a performance impact, though.
>

I can't speak for ARM, but I think that all of the read barriers are
essentially free on x86.  (smp_mb is a very different story, but that
shouldn't be needed here.)

--Andy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>