lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v17 08/15] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:53 -0500
Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org> wrote:

> [This patch depends on luto@mit.edu's no_new_privs patch:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/1/30/264
> included in this series for ease of consumption.
> ]
>
> This patch adds support for seccomp mode 2. Mode 2 introduces the
> ability for unprivileged processes to install system call filtering
> policy expressed in terms of a Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF) program.
> This program will be evaluated in the kernel for each system call
> the task makes and computes a result based on data in the format
> of struct seccomp_data.
>
> A filter program may be installed by calling:
> struct sock_fprog fprog = { ... };
> ...
> prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER, &fprog);
>
> The return value of the filter program determines if the system call is
> allowed to proceed or denied. If the first filter program installed
> allows prctl(2) calls, then the above call may be made repeatedly
> by a task to further reduce its access to the kernel. All attached
> programs must be evaluated before a system call will be allowed to
> proceed.
>
> Filter programs will be inherited across fork/clone and execve.
> However, if the task attaching the filter is unprivileged
> (!CAP_SYS_ADMIN) the no_new_privs bit will be set on the task. This
> ensures that unprivileged tasks cannot attach filters that affect
> privileged tasks (e.g., setuid binary).
>
> There are a number of benefits to this approach. A few of which are
> as follows:
> - BPF has been exposed to userland for a long time
> - BPF optimization (and JIT'ing) are well understood
> - Userland already knows its ABI: system call numbers and desired
> arguments
> - No time-of-check-time-of-use vulnerable data accesses are possible.
> - system call arguments are loaded on access only to minimize copying
> required for system call policy decisions.
>
> Mode 2 support is restricted to architectures that enable
> HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER. In this patch, the primary dependency is on
> syscall_get_arguments(). The full desired scope of this feature will
> add a few minor additional requirements expressed later in this series.
> Based on discussion, SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO and SECCOMP_RET_TRACE seem to be
> the desired additional functionality.
>
> No architectures are enabled in this patch.
>
>
> ...
>
> +/**
> + * struct seccomp_filter - container for seccomp BPF programs
> + *
> + * @usage: reference count to manage the object liftime.

i found a bug

> + * get/put helpers should be used when accessing an instance
> + * outside of a lifetime-guarded section. In general, this
> + * is only needed for handling filters shared across tasks.
> + * @prev: points to a previously installed, or inherited, filter
> + * @len: the number of instructions in the program
> + * @insns: the BPF program instructions to evaluate
> + *
> + * seccomp_filter objects are organized in a tree linked via the @prev
> + * pointer. For any task, it appears to be a singly-linked list starting
> + * with current->seccomp.filter, the most recently attached or inherited filter.
> + * However, multiple filters may share a @prev node, by way of fork(), which
> + * results in a unidirectional tree existing in memory. This is similar to
> + * how namespaces work.
> + *
> + * seccomp_filter objects should never be modified after being attached
> + * to a task_struct (other than @usage).
> + */
> +struct seccomp_filter {
> + atomic_t usage;
> + struct seccomp_filter *prev;
> + unsigned short len; /* Instruction count */
> + struct sock_filter insns[];
> +};
> +
> +/* Limit any path through the tree to 256KB worth of instructions. */
> +#define MAX_INSNS_PER_PATH ((1 << 18) / sizeof(struct sock_filter))
> +
> +static void seccomp_filter_log_failure(int syscall)
> +{
> + int compat = 0;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> + compat = is_compat_task();
> +#endif

hm, I'm surprised that we don't have a zero-returning implementation of
is_compat_task() when CONFIG_COMPAT=n. Seems silly. Blames Arnd.

> + pr_info("%s[%d]: %ssystem call %d blocked at 0x%lx\n",
> + current->comm, task_pid_nr(current),
> + (compat ? "compat " : ""),
> + syscall, KSTK_EIP(current));
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * get_u32 - returns a u32 offset into data
> + * @data: a unsigned 64 bit value
> + * @index: 0 or 1 to return the first or second 32-bits
> + *
> + * This inline exists to hide the length of unsigned long.
> + * If a 32-bit unsigned long is passed in, it will be extended
> + * and the top 32-bits will be 0. If it is a 64-bit unsigned
> + * long, then whatever data is resident will be properly returned.
> + */
> +static inline u32 get_u32(u64 data, int index)
> +{
> + return ((u32 *)&data)[index];
> +}

This seems utterly broken on big-endian machines. If so: fix. If not:
add comment explaining why?

>
> ...
>
> +/**
> + * seccomp_chk_filter - verify seccomp filter code
> + * @filter: filter to verify
> + * @flen: length of filter
> + *
> + * Takes a previously checked filter (by sk_chk_filter) and
> + * redirects all filter code that loads struct sk_buff data
> + * and related data through seccomp_bpf_load. It also
> + * enforces length and alignment checking of those loads.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 if the rule set is legal or -EINVAL if not.
> + */
> +static int seccomp_chk_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen)
> +{
> + int pc;
> + for (pc = 0; pc < flen; pc++) {
> + struct sock_filter *ftest = &filter[pc];
> + u16 code = ftest->code;
> + u32 k = ftest->k;
> + switch (code) {

It's conventional to have a blank line between end-of-locals and
start-of-code.


> + case BPF_S_LD_W_ABS:
> + ftest->code = BPF_S_ANC_SECCOMP_LD_W;
> + /* 32-bit aligned and not out of bounds. */
> + if (k >= sizeof(struct seccomp_data) || k & 3)
> + return -EINVAL;
>
> ...
>
> +static u32 seccomp_run_filters(int syscall)
> +{
> + struct seccomp_filter *f;
> + u32 ret = SECCOMP_RET_KILL;
> + /*
> + * All filters are evaluated in order of youngest to oldest. The lowest
> + * BPF return value always takes priority.
> + */

The youngest-first design surprised me. It wasn't mentioned at all in
the changelog. Thinking about it, I guess it just doesn't matter. But
some description of the reasons for and implications of this decision
for the uninitiated would be welcome.

> + for (f = current->seccomp.filter; f; f = f->prev) {
> + ret = sk_run_filter(NULL, f->insns);
> + if (ret != SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW)
> + break;
> + }
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * seccomp_attach_filter: Attaches a seccomp filter to current.
> + * @fprog: BPF program to install
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on success or an errno on failure.
> + */
> +static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> +{
> + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> + unsigned long fp_size = fprog->len * sizeof(struct sock_filter);
> + unsigned long total_insns = fprog->len;
> + long ret;
> +
> + if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for (filter = current->seccomp.filter; filter; filter = filter->prev)
> + total_insns += filter->len + 4; /* include a 4 instr penalty */

So tasks don't share filters? We copy them by value at fork? Do we do
this at vfork() too?

> + if (total_insns > MAX_INSNS_PER_PATH)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /*
> + * Installing a seccomp filter requires that the task have
> + * CAP_SYS_ADMIN in its namespace or be running with no_new_privs.
> + * This avoids scenarios where unprivileged tasks can affect the
> + * behavior of privileged children.
> + */
> + if (!current->no_new_privs &&
> + security_capable_noaudit(current_cred(), current_user_ns(),
> + CAP_SYS_ADMIN) != 0)
> + return -EACCES;
> +
> + /* Allocate a new seccomp_filter */
> + filter = kzalloc(sizeof(struct seccomp_filter) + fp_size, GFP_KERNEL);

I think this gives userspace an easy way of causing page allocation
failure warnings, by permitting large kmalloc() attempts. Add
__GFP_NOWARN?

> + if (!filter)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + atomic_set(&filter->usage, 1);
> + filter->len = fprog->len;
> +
> + /* Copy the instructions from fprog. */
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + if (copy_from_user(filter->insns, fprog->filter, fp_size))
> + goto fail;
> +
> + /* Check and rewrite the fprog via the skb checker */
> + ret = sk_chk_filter(filter->insns, filter->len);
> + if (ret)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + /* Check and rewrite the fprog for seccomp use */
> + ret = seccomp_chk_filter(filter->insns, filter->len);

"check" is spelled "check"!

> + if (ret)
> + goto fail;
> +
> + /*
> + * 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;
> +fail:
> + kfree(filter);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
>
> ...
>
> +/* put_seccomp_filter - decrements the ref count of tsk->seccomp.filter */
> +void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + struct seccomp_filter *orig = tsk->seccomp.filter;
> + /* Clean up single-reference branches iteratively. */
> + while (orig && atomic_dec_and_test(&orig->usage)) {
> + struct seccomp_filter *freeme = orig;
> + orig = orig->prev;
> + kfree(freeme);
> + }
> +}

So if one of the filters in the list has an elevated refcount, we bail
out on the remainder of the list. Seems odd.

> +#endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER */
>
> ...
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-06 22:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans