[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filt

To: Will Drewry <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] v2 seccomp_filters: Enable ftrace-based system call filtering
From: Ingo Molnar <>
Date: Mon, 16 May 2011 14:43:04 +0200
Cc: Eric Paris <>, James Morris <>,, Steven Rostedt <>, Frederic Weisbecker <>,,, Peter Zijlstra <>, "Serge E. Hallyn" <>, Ingo Molnar <>, Andrew Morton <>, Tejun Heo <>, Michal Marek <>, Oleg Nesterov <>, Jiri Slaby <>, David Howells <>, Russell King <>, Michal Simek <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <>, Paul Mackerras <>, Martin Schwidefsky <>, Heiko Carstens <>,, Paul Mundt <>, "David S. Miller" <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, "H. Peter Anvin" <>,, Peter Zijlstra <>,,,,,,, Linus Torvalds <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <1305299455.2076.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17)
* Will Drewry <> wrote:

> > Note, i'm not actually asking for the moon, a pony and more.
> >
> > I fully submit that we are yet far away from being able to do a full LSM 
> > via this mechanism.
> >
> > What i'm asking for is that because the syscall point steps taken by Will 
> > look very promising so it would be nice to do *that* in a slightly more 
> > flexible scheme that does not condemn it to be limited to the syscall 
> > boundary and such ...
> What do you suggest here?
> From my brief exploration of the ftrace/perf (and seccomp) code, I don't see 
> a clean way of integrating over the existing interfaces to the ftrace 
> framework (e.g., the global perf event pump seems to be a mismatch), but I 
> may be missing something obvious. [...]

Well, there's no global perf event pump. Here we'd obviously want to use 
buffer-less events that do no output (pumping) whatsoever - i.e. just counting 
events with filters attached.

What i suggest is to:

 - share syscall events        # you are fine with that as your patch makes use 
of them
 - share the scripting engine  # you are fine with that as your patch makes use 
of it

 - share *any* other event to do_exit() a process at syscall exit time

 - share any other active event that kernel developers specifically enable 
   for active use to impact security-relevant execution even sooner than 
   syscall exit time - not just system calls

 - share the actual facility that manages (sets/gets) filters

So right now you have this structure for your new feature:

 Documentation/trace/seccomp_filter.txt |   75 +++++
 arch/x86/kernel/ldt.c                  |    5 
 arch/x86/kernel/tls.c                  |    7 
 fs/proc/array.c                        |   21 +
 fs/proc/base.c                         |   25 +
 include/linux/ftrace_event.h           |    9 
 include/linux/seccomp.h                |   98 +++++++
 include/linux/syscalls.h               |   54 ++--
 include/trace/syscall.h                |    6 
 kernel/Makefile                        |    1 
 kernel/fork.c                          |    8 
 kernel/perf_event.c                    |    7 
 kernel/seccomp.c                       |  144 ++++++++++-
 kernel/seccomp_filter.c                |  428 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/sys.c                           |   11 
 kernel/trace/Kconfig                   |   10 
 kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c     |   60 ++--
 kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c          |   96 ++++++-
 18 files changed, 986 insertions(+), 79 deletions(-)

Firstly, one specific problem i can see is that kernel/seccomp_filter.c 
hardcodes to the system call boundary. Which is fine to a prototype 
implementation (and obviously fine for something that builds upon seccomp) but 
not fine in terms of a flexible Linux security feature :-)

You have hardcoded these syscall assumptions via:

 struct seccomp_filter {
        struct list_head list;
        struct rcu_head rcu;
        int syscall_nr;
        struct syscall_metadata *data;
        struct event_filter *event_filter;

Which comes just because you chose to enumerate only syscall events - instead 
of enumerating all events.

Instead of that please bind to all events instead - syscalls are just one of 
the many events we have. Type 'perf list' and see how many event types we have, 
and quite a few could be enabled for 'active feedback' sandboxing as well.

Secondly, and this is really a variant of the first problem you have, the way 
you process event filter 'failures' is pretty limited. You utilize the regular 
seccomp method which works by calling into __secure_computing() and silently 
accepting syscalls or generating a hard do_exit() on even the slightest of 
filter failures.

Instead of that what we'd want to have is to have regular syscall events 
registered, *and* enabled for such active filtering purposes. The moment the 
filter hits such an 'active' event would set the TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME flag and 
some other attribute in the task and the kernel would do a do_exit() at the 
earliest of opportunities before calling the syscall or at the 
return-from-syscall point latest.

Note that no seccomp specific code would have to execute here, we can already 
generate events both at syscall entry and at syscall exit points, the only new 
bit we'd need is for the 'kill the task' [or abort the syscall] policy action.

This is *far* more generic still yields the same short-term end result as far 
as your sandboxing is concerned.

What we'd need for this is a way to mark existing TRACE_EVENT()s as 'active'. 
We'd mark all syscall events as 'active' straight away.

[ Detail: these trace events return a return code, which the calling code can 
  use, that way event return values could be used sooner than syscall exit 
  points. IRQ code could make use of it as well, so for example this way we 
  could filter based early packet inspection, still in the IRQ code. ]

Then what your feature would do is to simply open up the events you are 
interested in (just as counting events, without any buffers), and set 'active' 
filters in them them to 'deny/allow' specific combinations of parameters only.

Thirdly, you have added a separate facility to set/query filters via /proc, 
this lives mostly in /proc/<pid>/seccomp_filter. This seccomp specificity would 
go away altogether: it should be possible to query existing events and filters 
even outside of the seccomp facility, so if you want something explicit here 
beyond the current event ioctl() to set filters please improve the generic 
facility - which right now is poorer than what you have implemented so it's in 
good need to be improved! :-)

All in one such a solution would enable us to reuse code in a lot more deeper 
fashion while still providing all the functionality you are interested in. 
These are all short-term concerns, not pie-in-the-sky future ideal LSM 



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