Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:5bc5:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id os5csp4541777pxb; Tue, 2 Nov 2021 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyQ7owLtnFPqNv7/qsHdqsOU61lAwY2Oiri4F3DQUu+HRcbNy0lg5pwSgpQEY5qThSg+H8f X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:d9f:: with SMTP id go31mr22498454ejc.412.1635877480191; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1635877480; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pcgaVt9enzwJaoEnoFlNex6tjQvwJOmYNePCAFMJBxC59frIghtKa54DoLiU5GoXur S7Pfv2oVrQyCrEOzMVsaNNNo9HvlX3LelmIagTEArtKivHJ+wi1nQqVW74AJk2hl+Q6v QBbN0dKeARiBYVxZJiOOiVj6p0zXIECoBcpe6hAkNot7UxEt1hPQ6/MTES7ZCNRv55OK AwJslqHwkDf8My4cpV8AIdJP/YcDYrQJetw3LExWUQkezPaH8Mc+/HORkTF2H7iZdIzy V0wbLNeC0ZtZDIruB0NjCppPYB74AJPIgGGoeBf5mqzy8kBfiyxzYjZYgkMCxcIWqvxS Ja0w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:subject:mime-version:user-agent:message-id :in-reply-to:date:references:cc:to:from; bh=oGg1dWvFio1iwDQdizbDl7Z1XjQmhspTqThYkT6ZOWw=; b=HzTD91xzA/qF6no1ZetNGWYE2UX3OnMN+TmJzXhQsyOCfQ/4r/neg6zCNBS62ck5E1 BqeZN8WR5x5NbpuQRVh73aViaP1oyeOaVsB+hVjw51AI2OJFPNfuBgRTdsUOqntvkA0G CiUeyHpFNh8diN1bnMrdNe+t0H5OhumFFoTfys2ztjbnw0/duUJzNuZ6OhfmhtsCY2bb YSN4FzjqYQznaE2g/A9PX0Ew5nSgmHytFmHGAGpi6D+5rsbCbFqV7BzmS+Xnj+I0+LJV e7f1mSbMugRDvJIRhpsXKA2G/Bx9/JewX/COMPXivsZqPylzn8cN3PJjfPeRd7eVv4x1 q8zA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id qw31si33988362ejc.118.2021.11.02.11.24.15; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 11:24:40 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=xmission.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235021AbhKBSZF (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 2 Nov 2021 14:25:05 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:57560 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230230AbhKBSZE (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2021 14:25:04 -0400 Received: from in02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.52]:38068) by out02.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mhyQW-00AJ67-Tr; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:22:28 -0600 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95]:37228 helo=email.xmission.com) by in02.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1mhyQV-00EizZ-01; Tue, 02 Nov 2021 12:22:28 -0600 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Kees Cook Cc: Andrea Righi , Shuah Khan , Alexei Starovoitov , Andy Lutomirski , Will Drewry , linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org References: <202110280955.B18CB67@keescook> <878rydm56l.fsf@disp2133> <202110281136.5CE65399A7@keescook> <8735okls76.fsf@disp2133> <202110290755.451B036CE9@keescook> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2021 13:22:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <202110290755.451B036CE9@keescook> (Kees Cook's message of "Fri, 29 Oct 2021 07:58:02 -0700") Message-ID: <87y2665sf8.fsf@disp2133> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1mhyQV-00EizZ-01;;;mid=<87y2665sf8.fsf@disp2133>;;;hst=in02.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX1/dOLwlXmVI7aCH/YYnczuKSEUIah1vXvg= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on sa05.xmission.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=8.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50, DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE,T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.4933] * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa05 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: ;Kees Cook X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 1377 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.13 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 14 (1.0%), b_tie_ro: 12 (0.8%), parse: 1.56 (0.1%), extract_message_metadata: 18 (1.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.53 (0.1%), tests_pri_-1000: 19 (1.4%), tests_pri_-950: 1.64 (0.1%), tests_pri_-900: 1.33 (0.1%), tests_pri_-90: 110 (8.0%), check_bayes: 105 (7.7%), b_tokenize: 7 (0.5%), b_tok_get_all: 6 (0.5%), b_comp_prob: 2.5 (0.2%), b_tok_touch_all: 86 (6.2%), b_finish: 1.16 (0.1%), tests_pri_0: 1195 (86.8%), check_dkim_signature: 0.90 (0.1%), check_dkim_adsp: 3.7 (0.3%), poll_dns_idle: 0.46 (0.0%), tests_pri_10: 2.4 (0.2%), tests_pri_500: 9 (0.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: selftests: seccomp_bpf failure on 5.15 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Sat, 08 Feb 2020 21:53:50 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in02.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kees Cook writes: > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Kees Cook writes: >> >> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 12:26:26PM -0500, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Is it a problem that the debugger can see the signal if the process does >> not? > > Right, I'm trying to understand that too. However, my neighbor just lost > power. :| > > What I was in the middle of checking was what ptrace "sees" going > through a fatal SIGSYS; my initial debugging attempts were weird. Kees have you regained power and had a chance to see my SA_IMMUTABLE patch? Does what I implemented seem like it will work for you? I think it is a solid and simple solution to a pair of problems with my change to use the ordinary coredump path for seccomp. But I would very much love to hear it seems reasonable to you, as you were looking at the problem as well. Eric