Re: seccomp feature development

[Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>]

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:48:46PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> On 2020-05-19, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:05 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > ## deep argument inspection
> > >
> > > Background: seccomp users would like to write filters that traverse
> > > the user pointers passed into many syscalls, but seccomp can't do this
> > > dereference for a variety of reasons (mostly involving race conditions and
> > > rearchitecting the entire kernel syscall and copy_from_user() code flows).
> > 
> > Also, other than for syscall entry, it might be worth thinking about
> > whether we want to have a special hook into seccomp for io_uring.
> > io_uring is growing support for more and more syscalls, including
> > things like openat2, connect, sendmsg, splice and so on, and that list
> > is probably just going to grow in the future. If people start wanting
> > to use io_uring in software with seccomp filters, it might be
> > necessary to come up with some mechanism to prevent io_uring from
> > permitting access to almost everything else...
> > 
> > Probably not a big priority for now, but something to keep in mind for
> > the future.
> 
> Indeed. Quite a few people have raised concerns about io_uring and its
> debug-ability, but I agree that another less-commonly-mentioned concern
> should be how you restrict io_uring(2) from doing operations you've
> disallowed through seccomp. Though obviously user_notif shouldn't be
> allowed. :D

As soon as you switch kernels to an io_uring supported kernel while
maintaing a blacklist without updating all your seccomp filters you're
currently hosed (Yes, blacklists aren't great but they have their
uses.).

Christian