lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS info and make it synchronous.
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Indan Zupancic <indan@nul.nu> wrote:
>> On Tue, February 21, 2012 18:30, Will Drewry wrote:
>>> This change enables SIGSYS, defines _sigfields._sigsys, and adds
>>> x86 (compat) arch support.  _sigsys defines fields which allow
>>> a signal handler to receive the triggering system call number,
>>> the relevant AUDIT_ARCH_* value for that number, and the address
>>> of the callsite.
>>>
>>> To ensure that SIGSYS delivery occurs on return from the triggering
>>> system call, SIGSYS is added to the SYNCHRONOUS_MASK macro.  I'm
>>> this is enough to ensure it will be synchronous or if it is explicitly
>>> required to ensure an immediate delivery of the signal upon return from
>>> the blocked system call.
>>>
>>> The first consumer of SIGSYS would be seccomp filter.  In particular,
>>> a filter program could specify a new return value, SECCOMP_RET_TRAP,
>>> which would result in the system call being denied and the calling
>>> thread signaled.  This also means that implementing arch-specific
>>> support can be dependent upon HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER.
>>
>> I think others said this is useful, but I don't see how. Easier
>> debugging compared to checking return values?
>>
>> I suppose SIGSYS can be blocked, so there is no guarantee the process
>> will be killed.
>
> Yeah, this allows for in-process system call emulation, if desired, or
> for the process to dump core/etc.  With RET_ERRNO or RET_KILL, there
> isn't any feedback to the system about the state of the process.  Kill
> populates audit_seccomp and dmesg, but if the application
> user/developer isn't the system admin, installing audit bits or
> checking system logs seems onerous.

[Warning: this suggestion may be bad for any number of reasons]

I wonder if it would be helpful to change the semantics of RET_KILL
slightly. Rather than killing via do_exit, what if it killed via a
forcibly-fatal SIGSYS? That way, the parent's waitid() / SIGCHLD
would indicate CLD_KILLED with si_status == SIGSYS. The parent could
check that and report that the child was probably compromised.

--Andy
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-23 00:41    [W:0.082 / U:27.280 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site