Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1600661418.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu> <b792335294ee5598d0fb42702a49becbce2f925f.1600661419.git.yifeifz2@illinois.edu>
 <CAG48ez3k0_7Vev_O=uV_WVuUGK6BPA0RyrYXMYSDV4DTMMe26g@mail.gmail.com> <CABqSeAROcwq0ZGzWaxyPm+LDHu6T_8CD7_1c-hdhaMikr_ECCA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABqSeAROcwq0ZGzWaxyPm+LDHu6T_8CD7_1c-hdhaMikr_ECCA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:57:58 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2HytqFaJ6V9iA6YZrbZU3kG4bB7nETMfHPt0-wd5D1jg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH seccomp 2/2] seccomp/cache: Cache filter results that
 allow syscalls
To:     YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Cc:     Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@illinois.edu>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Dimitrios Skarlatos <dskarlat@cs.cmu.edu>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Hubertus Franke <frankeh@us.ibm.com>,
        Jack Chen <jianyan2@illinois.edu>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@illinois.edu>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@illinois.edu>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:51 AM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 7:35 AM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > We do this by creating a per-task bitmap of permitted syscalls.
> > > If seccomp filter is invoked we check if it is cached and if so
> > > directly return allow. Else we call into the cBPF filter, and if
> > > the result is an allow then we cache the results.
> >
> > What? Why? We already have code to statically evaluate the filter for
> > all syscall numbers. We should be using the results of that instead of
> > re-running the filter and separately caching the results.
> >
> > > The cache is per-task
> >
> > Please don't. The static results are per-filter, so the bitmask(s)
> > should also be per-filter and immutable.
>
> I do agree that an immutable bitmask is faster and easier to reason
> about its correctness. However, I did not find the "code to statically
> evaluate the filter for all syscall numbers" while reading seccomp.c.
> Would you give me a pointer to that and I will see how to best make
> use of it?

I'm talking about the code you're adding in the other patch ("[RFC
PATCH seccomp 1/2] seccomp/cache: Add "emulator" to check if filter is
arg-dependent"). Sorry, that was a bit unclear.