lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 11/11] seccomp: Add tgid and tid into seccomp_data
From
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> [cc: Eric Biederman]
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>>> On Jul 25, 2014 6:48 AM, "David Drysdale" <drysdale@google.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add the current thread and thread group IDs into the data
>>>> available for seccomp-bpf programs to work on. This allows
>>>> installation of filters that police syscalls based on thread
>>>> or process ID, e.g. tgkill(2)/kill(2)/prctl(2).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> kernel/seccomp.c | 2 ++
>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>> index ac2dc9f72973..b88370d6f6ca 100644
>>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
>>>> @@ -36,12 +36,22 @@
>>>> * @instruction_pointer: at the time of the system call.
>>>> * @args: up to 6 system call arguments always stored as 64-bit values
>>>> * regardless of the architecture.
>>>> + * @tgid: thread group ID of the thread executing the BPF program.
>>>> + * @tid: thread ID of the thread executing the BPF program.
>>>> + * The SECCOMP_DATA_TID_PRESENT macro indicates the presence of the
>>>> + * tgid and tid fields; user programs may use this macro to conditionally
>>>> + * compile code against older versions of the kernel. Note also that
>>>> + * BPF programs should cope with the absence of these fields by testing
>>>> + * the length of data available.
>>>> */
>>>> struct seccomp_data {
>>>> int nr;
>>>> __u32 arch;
>>>> __u64 instruction_pointer;
>>>> __u64 args[6];
>>>> + __u32 tgid;
>>>> + __u32 tid;
>>>> };
>>>> +#define SECCOMP_DATA_TID_PRESENT 1
>>>>
>>>> #endif /* _UAPI_LINUX_SECCOMP_H */
>>>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>> index 301bbc24739c..dd5146f15d6d 100644
>>>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>>> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ static void populate_seccomp_data(struct seccomp_data *sd)
>>>> sd->args[4] = args[4];
>>>> sd->args[5] = args[5];
>>>> sd->instruction_pointer = KSTK_EIP(task);
>>>> + sd->tgid = task_tgid_vnr(current);
>>>> + sd->tid = task_pid_vnr(current);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This is, IMO, problematic. These should probably be relative to the
>>> filter creator, not the filtered task. This will also hurt
>>> performance.
>>
>> Yeah, we can't change the seccomp_data structure without a lot of
>> care, and tgid/tid really should be encoded in the filter. However, it
>> is tricky in the forking case.
>>
>>>
>>> What's the use case? Can it be better achieved with a new eBPF function?
>>
>> Julien had been wanting something like this too (though he'd suggested
>> it via prctl): limit the signal functions to "self" only. I wonder if
>> adding a prctl like done for O_BENEATH could work for signal sending?
>>
>
>
> Can we do one better and add a flag to prevent any non-self pid
> lookups? This might actually be easy on top of the pid namespace work
> (e.g. we could change the way that find_task_by_vpid works).

Ooh, that would be extremely interesting, yes. Kind of an extreme form
of pid namespace without actually being a namespace.

> It's far from just being signals. There's access_process_vm, ptrace,
> all the signal functions, clock_gettime (see CPUCLOCK_PID -- yes, this
> is ridiculous), and probably some others that I've forgotten about or
> never noticed in the first place.

Yeah, that would be very interesting.

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-25 20:21    [W:0.113 / U:14.924 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site