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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 seccomp 3/6] seccomp/cache: Add "emulator" to check if filter is arg-dependent
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:47:47 -0700
Message-Id: <05109FF5-65C9-491E-9D9D-2FECE4F8B2B0@amacapital.net>
References: <CABqSeASR0bQ7Y302SkZ639NM=roSVRmd3ROGm0YDEFCTxxd63w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        YiFei Zhu <yifeifz2@illinois.edu>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        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>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Josep Torrellas <torrella@illinois.edu>,
        Tianyin Xu <tyxu@illinois.edu>,
        Tobin Feldman-Fitzthum <tobin@ibm.com>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
        Valentin Rothberg <vrothber@redhat.com>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABqSeASR0bQ7Y302SkZ639NM=roSVRmd3ROGm0YDEFCTxxd63w@mail.gmail.com>
To:     YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


> On Sep 25, 2020, at 6:23 PM, YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFOn Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:07 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.=
net> wrote:
>> We'd need at least three states per syscall: unknown, always-allow,
>> and need-to-run-filter.
>>=20
>> The downsides are less determinism and a bit of an uglier
>> implementation.  The upside is that we don't need to loop over all
>> syscalls at load -- instead the time that each operation takes is
>> independent of the total number of syscalls on the system.  And we can
>> entirely avoid, say, evaluating the x32 case until the task tries an
>> x32 syscall.
>=20
> I was really afraid of multiple tasks writing to the bitmaps at once,
> hence I used bitmap-per-task. Now I think about it, if this stays
> lockless, the worst thing that can happen is that a write undo a bit
> set by another task. In this case, if the "known" bit is cleared then
> the worst would be the emulation is run many times. But if the "always
> allow" is cleared but not "known" bit then we have an issue: the
> syscall will always be executed in BPF.
>=20

If you interleave the bits, then you can read and write them atomically =E2=80=
=94 both bits for any given syscall will be in the same word.

> Is it worth holding a spinlock here?
>=20
> Though I'll try to get the benchmark numbers for the emulator later tonigh=
t.
>=20
> YiFei Zhu