Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: Add seccomp support

From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
Cc: "linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@linaro.org>,
	Lee Campbell <leecam@google.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] arm64: Add seccomp support
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 10:40:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140812094058.GD29013@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53E9BAD5.3080201@linaro.org>

Hi Akashi,

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 07:57:25AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 08/11/2014 06:24 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 08:35:42AM +0100, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >> As discussed in a few weeks ago, aarch64 won't support PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL.
> >
> > Well, I don't think anything was set in stone. If you have a compelling
> > reason why adding the new request gives you something over setting w8
> > directly, then we can extend ptrace.
> 
> Yeah, I think I may have to change my mind. Looking into __secure_computing(),
> I found the code below:
> 
>  >     case SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER:
>  >         case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE:
>  >             ...
>  >             if (syscall_get_nr(current, regs) < 0)
>  >                 goto skip;
> 
> This implies that we should modify syscallno *before* __secure_computing()
> returns.

Why does it imply that? There are four competing entities here:

 - seccomp
 - tracehook
 - ftrace (trace_sys_*)
 - audit

With the exception of ftrace, they can all potentially rewrite the pt_regs
(the code you cite above is just below a ptrace_event call), so we have
to choose some order in which to call them.

On entry, x86 and arm call them in the order I listed above, so it seems
sensible to follow that.

> I assumed, in my next version, we could skip a system call by overwriting
> syscallno with x8 in syscall_trace_enter() after __secure_computing()
> returns 0, and it actually works.

Why does overwriting the syscallno with x8 skip the syscall?

I thought the idea was that we would save w8 prior to each call that could
change the pt_regs, then if it was changed to -1 we would replace it with
the saved value and return -1? The only confusion I have is whether we
should call the exit hooks after skipping a syscall. I *think* x86 does
call them, but ARM doesn't. Andy says this can trigger an OOPs:

  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-July/274988.html

so we should fix that for ARM while we're here.

Will