From: "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@canonical.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
Cc: mtk.manpages@gmail.com, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@fb.com>, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
Robert Sesek <rsesek@google.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
Subject: Re: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2020 07:41:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3a417df2-6346-601d-568e-29307347e6aa@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201001171206.jvkdx4htqux5agdv@gmail.com>
On 10/1/20 7:12 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 10:58:50AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 05:47:54PM +0200, Jann Horn via Containers wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 2:54 PM Christian Brauner
>>> <christian.brauner@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 05:53:46PM +0200, Jann Horn via Containers wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 1:07 PM Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
>>>>> <mtk.manpages@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> NOTES
>>>>>> The file descriptor returned when seccomp(2) is employed with the
>>>>>> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER flag can be monitored using
>>>>>> poll(2), epoll(7), and select(2). When a notification is pend‐
>>>>>> ing, these interfaces indicate that the file descriptor is read‐
>>>>>> able.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should probably also point out somewhere that, as
>>>>> include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h says:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Similar precautions should be applied when stacking SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
>>>>> * or SECCOMP_RET_TRACE. For SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF filters acting on the
>>>>> * same syscall, the most recently added filter takes precedence. This means
>>>>> * that the new SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF filter can override any
>>>>> * SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND from earlier filters, essentially allowing all
>>>>> * such filtered syscalls to be executed by sending the response
>>>>> * SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE. Note that SECCOMP_RET_TRACE can equally
>>>>> * be overriden by SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words, from a security perspective, you must assume that the
>>>>> target process can bypass any SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF (or
>>>>> SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) filters unless it is completely prohibited from
>>>>> calling seccomp(). This should also be noted over in the main
>>>>> seccomp(2) manpage, especially the SECCOMP_RET_TRACE part.
>>>>
>>>> So I was actually wondering about this when I skimmed this and a while
>>>> ago but forgot about this again... Afaict, you can only ever load a
>>>> single filter with SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER set. If there
>>>> already is a filter with the SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER property
>>>> in the tasks filter hierarchy then the kernel will refuse to load a new
>>>> one?
>>>>
>>>> static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
>>>> {
>>>> struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
>>>> struct seccomp_filter *cur;
>>>>
>>>> for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
>>>> if (cur->notif)
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> shouldn't that be sufficient to guarantee that USER_NOTIF filters can't
>>>> override each other for the same task simply because there can only ever
>>>> be a single one?
>>>
>>> Good point. Exceeeept that that check seems ineffective because this
>>> happens before we take the locks that guard against TSYNC, and also
>>> before we decide to which existing filter we want to chain the new
>>> filter. So if two threads race with TSYNC, I think they'll be able to
>>> chain two filters with listeners together.
>>
>> Yep, seems the check needs to also be in seccomp_can_sync_threads() to
>> be totally effective,
>>
>>> I don't know whether we want to eternalize this "only one listener
>>> across all the filters" restriction in the manpage though, or whether
>>> the man page should just say that the kernel currently doesn't support
>>> it but that security-wise you should assume that it might at some
>>> point.
>>
>> This requirement originally came from Andy, arguing that the semantics
>> of this were/are confusing, which still makes sense to me. Perhaps we
>> should do something like the below?
>
> I think we should either keep up this restriction and then cement it in
> the manpage or add a flag to indicate that the notifier is
> non-overridable.
> I don't care about the default too much, i.e. whether it's overridable
> by default and exclusive if opting in or the other way around doesn't
> matter too much. But from a supervisor's perspective it'd be quite nice
> to be able to be sure that a notifier can't be overriden by another
> notifier.
>
> I think having a flag would provide the greatest flexibility but I agree
> that the semantics of multiple listeners are kinda odd.
So, for now, I have applied the patch at the foot of this mail
to the pages. Does this seem correct?
> Below looks sane to me though again, I'm not sitting in fron of source
> code.
[...]
Thanks,
Michael
PS Jann, if you see this, I'm still working through your (extensive
and very helpful) review comments. I will be sending a response.
======
diff --git a/man2/seccomp.2 b/man2/seccomp.2
index 9ab07f4ab..45a6984df 100644
--- a/man2/seccomp.2
+++ b/man2/seccomp.2
@@ -221,6 +221,11 @@ return a new user-space notification file descriptor.
When the filter returns
.BR SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
a notification will be sent to this file descriptor.
+.IP
+At most one seccomp filter using the
+.BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER
+flag can be installed for a thread.
+.IP
See
.BR seccomp_user_notif (2)
for further details.
@@ -789,6 +794,12 @@ capability in its user namespace, or had not set
before using
.BR SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER .
.TP
+.BR EBUSY
+While installing a new filter, the
+.BR SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER
+flag was specified,
+but a previous filter had already been installed with that flag.
+.TP
.BR EFAULT
.IR args
was not a valid address.
diff --git a/man2/seccomp_user_notif.2 b/man2/seccomp_user_notif.2
index a6025e4d4..d1a406f46 100644
--- a/man2/seccomp_user_notif.2
+++ b/man2/seccomp_user_notif.2
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@ Consequently, the return value of the (successful)
.BR seccomp (2)
call is a new "listening"
file descriptor that can be used to receive notifications.
+Only one such "listener" can be established.
.IP \(bu
In cases where it is appropriate, the seccomp filter returns the action value
.BR SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF .
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-14 9:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-09-30 11:07 For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-09-30 15:03 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-30 15:11 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-30 20:34 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-09-30 23:03 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-09-30 23:11 ` Jann Horn
2020-09-30 23:24 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-10-01 1:52 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 2:14 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-25 16:31 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-26 15:54 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-27 6:14 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-27 10:28 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-28 6:31 ` Sargun Dhillon
2020-10-28 9:43 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-28 17:43 ` Sargun Dhillon
2020-10-28 18:20 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 7:49 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-26 0:32 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-26 9:51 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-26 10:31 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-28 22:56 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-29 1:11 ` Jann Horn
[not found] ` <20201029021348.GB25673@cisco>
2020-10-29 4:26 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-28 22:53 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-29 1:25 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 7:45 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-14 4:40 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-09-30 15:53 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 12:54 ` Christian Brauner
2020-10-01 15:47 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 16:58 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-10-01 17:12 ` Christian Brauner
2020-10-14 5:41 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) [this message]
2020-10-01 18:18 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-01 18:56 ` Tycho Andersen
2020-10-01 17:05 ` Christian Brauner
2020-10-15 11:24 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-15 20:32 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-16 18:29 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-17 0:25 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-24 12:52 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-26 9:32 ` Jann Horn
2020-10-26 9:47 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-09-30 23:39 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-15 11:24 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-26 0:19 ` Kees Cook
2020-10-26 9:39 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-01 12:36 ` Christian Brauner
2020-10-15 11:23 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2020-10-01 21:06 ` Sargun Dhillon
2020-10-01 23:19 ` Tycho Andersen
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=3a417df2-6346-601d-568e-29307347e6aa@gmail.com \
--to=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=christian.brauner@canonical.com \
--cc=christian@brauner.io \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=gscrivan@redhat.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=rsesek@google.com \
--cc=songliubraving@fb.com \
--cc=tycho@tycho.pizza \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).