Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To: Daurnimator <quae@daurnimator.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	io-uring <io-uring@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 2/3] io_uring: add IOURING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS opcode
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 16:14:04 +0200
Message-ID: <20200722141404.jfzfl3alpyw7o7dw@steredhat> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEnbY+fCP-HS_rWfOF2rnUPos-eZRF1dL+m2Q8CZidi_W=a7xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 12:35:15PM +1000, Daurnimator wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 at 03:11, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >
> > On 7/21/20 4:40 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 03:26:51PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > >> On 7/16/20 6:48 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> > >>> index efc50bd0af34..0774d5382c65 100644
> > >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> > >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/io_uring.h
> > >>> @@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ enum {
> > >>>     IORING_REGISTER_PROBE,
> > >>>     IORING_REGISTER_PERSONALITY,
> > >>>     IORING_UNREGISTER_PERSONALITY,
> > >>> +   IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS,
> > >>>
> > >>>     /* this goes last */
> > >>>     IORING_REGISTER_LAST
> > >>> @@ -293,4 +294,30 @@ struct io_uring_probe {
> > >>>     struct io_uring_probe_op ops[0];
> > >>>  };
> > >>>
> > >>> +struct io_uring_restriction {
> > >>> +   __u16 opcode;
> > >>> +   union {
> > >>> +           __u8 register_op; /* IORING_RESTRICTION_REGISTER_OP */
> > >>> +           __u8 sqe_op;      /* IORING_RESTRICTION_SQE_OP */
> > >>> +   };
> > >>> +   __u8 resv;
> > >>> +   __u32 resv2[3];
> > >>> +};
> > >>> +
> > >>> +/*
> > >>> + * io_uring_restriction->opcode values
> > >>> + */
> > >>> +enum {
> > >>> +   /* Allow an io_uring_register(2) opcode */
> > >>> +   IORING_RESTRICTION_REGISTER_OP,
> > >>> +
> > >>> +   /* Allow an sqe opcode */
> > >>> +   IORING_RESTRICTION_SQE_OP,
> > >>> +
> > >>> +   /* Only allow fixed files */
> > >>> +   IORING_RESTRICTION_FIXED_FILES_ONLY,
> > >>> +
> > >>> +   IORING_RESTRICTION_LAST
> > >>> +};
> > >>> +
> > >>
> > >> Not sure I totally love this API. Maybe it'd be cleaner to have separate
> > >> ops for this, instead of muxing it like this. One for registering op
> > >> code restrictions, and one for disallowing other parts (like fixed
> > >> files, etc).
> > >>
> > >> I think that would look a lot cleaner than the above.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Talking with Stefan, an alternative, maybe more near to your suggestion,
> > > would be to remove the 'struct io_uring_restriction' and add the
> > > following register ops:
> > >
> > >     /* Allow an sqe opcode */
> > >     IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTION_SQE_OP
> > >
> > >     /* Allow an io_uring_register(2) opcode */
> > >     IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTION_REG_OP
> > >
> > >     /* Register IORING_RESTRICTION_*  */
> > >     IORING_REGISTER_RESTRICTION_OP
> > >
> > >
> > >     enum {
> > >         /* Only allow fixed files */
> > >         IORING_RESTRICTION_FIXED_FILES_ONLY,
> > >
> > >         IORING_RESTRICTION_LAST
> > >     }
> > >
> > >
> > > We can also enable restriction only when the rings started, to avoid to
> > > register IORING_REGISTER_ENABLE_RINGS opcode. Once rings are started,
> > > the restrictions cannot be changed or disabled.
> >
> > My concerns are largely:
> >
> > 1) An API that's straight forward to use
> > 2) Something that'll work with future changes
> >
> > The "allow these opcodes" is straightforward, and ditto for the register
> > opcodes. The fixed file I guess is the odd one out. So if we need to
> > disallow things in the future, we'll need to add a new restriction
> > sub-op. Should this perhaps be "these flags must be set", and that could
> > easily be augmented with "these flags must not be set"?
> >
> > --
> > Jens Axboe
> >
> 
> This is starting to sound a lot like seccomp filtering.
> Perhaps we should go straight to adding a BPF hook that fires when
> reading off the submission queue?
> 

You're right. I e-mailed about that whit Kees Cook [1] and he agreed that the
restrictions in io_uring should allow us to address some issues that with
seccomp it's a bit difficult. For example:
- different restrictions for different io_uring instances in the same
  process
- limit SQEs to use only registered fds and buffers

Maybe seccomp could take advantage of the restrictions to filter SQEs opcodes.

Thanks,
Stefano

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/202007160751.ED56C55@keescook/


  reply index

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-07-16 12:48 [PATCH RFC v2 0/3] io_uring: add restrictions to support untrusted applications and guests Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 12:48 ` [PATCH RFC v2 1/3] io_uring: use an enumeration for io_uring_register(2) opcodes Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 20:16   ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-16 20:42     ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-16 20:47       ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-07-16 20:51         ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-16 21:20           ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-17  8:13             ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 12:48 ` [PATCH RFC v2 2/3] io_uring: add IOURING_REGISTER_RESTRICTIONS opcode Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 21:26   ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-17  8:55     ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-21 10:40     ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-21 17:11       ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-22  2:35         ` Daurnimator
2020-07-22 14:14           ` Stefano Garzarella [this message]
2020-07-22 14:29         ` Stefano Garzarella
2020-07-16 12:48 ` [PATCH RFC v2 3/3] io_uring: allow disabling rings during the creation Stefano Garzarella

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200722141404.jfzfl3alpyw7o7dw@steredhat \
    --to=sgarzare@redhat.com \
    --cc=asarai@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
    --cc=io-uring@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=jannh@google.com \
    --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quae@daurnimator.com \
    --cc=sargun@sargun.me \
    --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Kernel-hardening archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening/0 kernel-hardening/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 kernel-hardening kernel-hardening/ https://lore.kernel.org/kernel-hardening \
		kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
	public-inbox-index kernel-hardening

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/com.openwall.lists.kernel-hardening


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git