Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754556AbaGKQVX (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:21:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50098 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751767AbaGKQVW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:21:22 -0400 From: Paul Moore To: Eric Paris Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Richard Guy Briggs , linux-audit@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Al Viro , Will Drewry Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [RFC] seccomp: give BPF x32 bit when restoring x32 filter Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:21:19 -0400 Message-ID: <14055169.hesOIjNJgN@sifl> Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: KMail/4.13.2 (Linux/3.14.8-gentoo; KDE/4.13.2; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1405095407.2357.1.camel@flatline.rdu.redhat.com> References: <1458762.ra4TnS54ZN@sifl> <1405095407.2357.1.camel@flatline.rdu.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday, July 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM Eric Paris wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 12:11 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday, July 10, 2014 09:06:02 PM H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > Incidentally: do seccomp users know that on an x86-64 system you can > > > recevie system calls from any of the x86 architectures, regardless of > > > how the program is invoked? (This is unusual, so normally denying those > > > "alien" calls is the right thing to do.) > > > > I obviously can't speak for all seccomp users, but libseccomp handles this > > by checking the seccomp_data->arch value at the start of the filter and > > killing (by default) any non-native architectures. If you want, you can > > change this default behavior or add support for other architectures (e.g. > > create a filter that allows both x86-64 and x32 but disallows x86, or any > > combination of the three for that matter). > > Maybe libseccomp does some HORRIFIC contortions under the hood, but the > interface is crap... Since seccomp_data->arch can't distinguish between > X32 and X86_64. If I write a seccomp filter which says > > KILL arch != x86_64 > KILL init_module > ALLOW everything else > > I can still call init_module, I just have to use the X32 variant. > > If libseccomp is translating: > > KILL arch != x86_64 into: > > KILL arch != x86_64 > KILL syscall_nr >= 2000 > > That's just showing how dumb the kernel interface is... Good for you > guys, but the kernel is just being dumb :) You're not going to hear me ever say that I like how the x32 ABI was done, it is a real mess from a seccomp filter point of view and we have to do some nasty stuff in libseccomp to make it all work correctly (see my comments on the libseccomp-devel list regarding my severe displeasure over x32), but what's done is done. I think it's too late to change the x32 seccomp filter ABI. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/