MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20120227170922.GA10608@redhat.com>
References: <1330140111-17201-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<1330140111-17201-6-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org>
	<20120227170922.GA10608@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 13:54:00 -0600
Message-ID: <CABqD9hbtFDU_vgBOajG2jJxQoHubcwYWJuHPLjgZkZyjGkQ2uQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
From: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        davem@davemloft.net, hpa@zytor.com, mingo@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, eparis@redhat.com,
        serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com,
        indan@nul.nu, pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, markus@chromium.org,
        coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3167
Lines: 100

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hello Will.
>
> I missed the previous discussions, and I don't think I can read
> all these emails now. So I apologize in advance if this was already
> discussed.

No worries - any review is appreciated :)

> On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>>
>> ?struct seccomp {
>> ? ? ? int mode;
>> + ? ? struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>> ?};
>
> Minor nit, it seems that the new member can be "ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER"

Good call - I'll add that.

>> +static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
>> +{
>> + ? ? struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>> + ? ? unsigned long fp_size = fprog->len * sizeof(struct sock_filter);
>> + ? ? long ret;
>> +
>> + ? ? if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? return -EINVAL;
>
> OK, this limits the memory PR_SET_SECCOMP can use.
>
> But,
>
>> + ? ? /*
>> + ? ? ?* If there is an existing filter, make it the prev and don't drop its
>> + ? ? ?* task reference.
>> + ? ? ?*/
>> + ? ? filter->prev = current->seccomp.filter;
>> + ? ? current->seccomp.filter = filter;
>> + ? ? return 0;
>
> this doesn't limit the number of filters, looks like a DoS.
>
> What if the application simply does prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, dummy_filter)
> in an endless loop?

It consumes a massive amount of kernel memory and, maybe, the OOM
killer gives it a boot :)

I wasn't sure what the normal convention was for avoiding memory
consumption by user processes. Should I just add a sysctl and a
per-task counter for the max number of filters?

I'm fine doing whatever makes sense here.

>
>
>> +static struct seccomp_filter *get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *orig)
>> +{
>> + ? ? if (!orig)
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? return NULL;
>> + ? ? /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
>> + ? ? atomic_inc(&orig->usage);
>> + ? ? return orig;
>> +}
>> ...
>> +void copy_seccomp(struct seccomp *child, const struct seccomp *parent)
>> +{
>> + ? ? /* Other fields are handled by dup_task_struct. */
>> + ? ? child->filter = get_seccomp_filter(parent->filter);
>> +}
>
> This is purely cosmetic, but imho looks a bit confusing.
>
> We do not copy seccomp->mode and this is correct, it was already copied
> implicitely. So why do we copy ->filter? This is not "symmetrical", afaics
> you can simply do
>
> ? ? ? ?void copy_seccomp(struct seccomp *child)
> ? ? ? ?{
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (child->filter)
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?atomic_inc(child->filter->usage);
>
> But once again, this is cosmetic, feel free to ignore.

Right now get_seccomp_filter does the NULL check, so really this could
be reduced to adding an external get_seccomp_filter(p->seccomp.filter)
in place of copy_seccomp().

As to removing the extra arg, that should be fine since the parent
can't drop its refcount when copy_seccomp is called.  At the very
least, I can make that change so it reads more cleanly.

thanks!
will
--
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/