From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67A9C433E0 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75634207D4 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="C9PxPqmf" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 75634207D4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=chromium.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE428838C; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5MDx892E1UxO; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCAC88252; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF42CC088A; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9848BC0176 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9432C88A00 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vtnjeRsi0N94 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pf1-f196.google.com (mail-pf1-f196.google.com [209.85.210.196]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26FE188A09 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 19:04:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pf1-f196.google.com with SMTP id x13so2012501pfn.11 for ; Wed, 20 May 2020 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=12E+682P9o2bF6lm6kU5PapC5kE3TokI6ew2I9bs8Vs=; b=C9PxPqmfMIeM8fyxnRZEu4V6E6nlbmGcT9SmBOPyti56xv1l7xZufWhnBikU6592Ow Xtn8JcoEWuW4JAG99vURjf+KZ2pYaeI+3FU7F9uS7iqC193U1dpESmDrUwi/McS65Dlm llDtizVYhaSCTF2CvBsIkjuQ64K1DGp9+kgOk= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=12E+682P9o2bF6lm6kU5PapC5kE3TokI6ew2I9bs8Vs=; b=ueCmMGyuJpi2dyqBN6DeaKeC/taZkKgeseMFS05Fo0J0c5MPQvRUCl5keMs/Lr3K+9 1AP/epV32J9r8VrX+jhYif3LRbWlzVKyXgqGLYz0yhSrTfSr5au4RSmMmHh3DaJWFfw4 4dp1ufz+pITBHnPNipdUnSwuFtMOaK2xhHsO2ugZOajYS3ZHE/FNrPQJ8BpCa9JjEKjy rborMltFrbKlib5Z8/XuKb16XLJ4ZRE3OiejOd6Xk0hUJFlu9kS8XywXh/dwr4KwHct5 bwHGu73ddfs0A4oEfPYPnwfg58r/0tMbRq+kdNEGK05AJXkRudr9rHU/FHrI8/2Wyq4F 9qrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533g5SvngnTO5zc+NkjwG/nRDngidGPBJRmiOd7kq1WrhyfGfdj7 BidoNnZ5kYUqYoYWOkHOA0IoMGcLoW0uCw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwXT+HJH5/By6lB8SWHL9O6yv34vtzQOphqvMVGau6W3ZkPQEQiln6F3n9Q4Q8fXAp6gMvvAA== X-Received: by 2002:a62:8648:: with SMTP id x69mr5765422pfd.278.1590001446482; Wed, 20 May 2020 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x14sm2706365pfi.60.2020.05.20.12.04.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 20 May 2020 12:04:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 20 May 2020 12:04:04 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Linus Torvalds Message-ID: <202005201151.AFA3C9E@keescook> References: <202005200917.71E6A5B20@keescook> <20200520163102.GZ23230@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <202005201104.72FED15776@keescook> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [TECH TOPIC] seccomp feature development X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Ksummit-discuss" On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:27:03AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Don't make this some kind of abstract conceptual problem thing. > Because it's not. I have no intention of making this abstract (the requests for expanding seccomp coverage have been for only a select class of syscalls, and specifically clone3 and openat2) nor more complicated than it needs to be (I regularly resist expanding the seccomp BPF dialect into eBPF). > So details, please. We've been discussing it all here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/202005181120.971232B7B@keescook/ The example given in the thread was dealing with things like clone3's struct clone_args's set_tid member, which is a pointer to a dynamically sized array. Things seccomp is NOT expected to introspect due to complexity would be stuff like the bpf() syscall. Perhaps the question is "how deeply does seccomp need to inspect?" and maybe it does not get to see anything beyond just the "top level" struct (i.e. struct clone_args) and all pointers within THAT become opaque? That certainly simplifies the design. -- Kees Cook _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss