From: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
tycho@tycho.ws, jannh@google.com, keescook@chromium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Check flags on seccomp_notif is unset
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:24:46 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191227022446.37e64ag4uaqms2w4@yavin.dot.cyphar.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57C06925-0CC6-4251-AD57-8FF1BC28F049@ubuntu.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3564 bytes --]
On 2019-12-26, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> On December 26, 2019 3:32:29 PM GMT+01:00, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com> wrote:
> >On 2019-12-26, Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 25, 2019 at 09:45:33PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> >> > This patch is a small change in enforcement of the uapi for
> >> > SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV ioctl. Specificaly, the datastructure
> >which is
> >> > passed (seccomp_notif), has a flags member. Previously that could
> >be
> >> > set to a nonsense value, and we would ignore it. This ensures that
> >> > no flags are set.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
> >> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> >>
> >> I'm fine with this since we soon want to make use of the flag
> >argument
> >> when we add a flag to get a pidfd from the seccomp notifier on
> >receive.
> >> The major users I could identify already pass in seccomp_notif with
> >all
> >> fields set to 0. If we really break users we can always revert; this
> >> seems very unlikely to me though.
> >>
> >> One more question below, otherwise:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
> >>
> >> > ---
> >> > kernel/seccomp.c | 7 +++++++
> >> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> > index 12d2227e5786..455925557490 100644
> >> > --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> > +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> > @@ -1026,6 +1026,13 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct
> >seccomp_filter *filter,
> >> > struct seccomp_notif unotif;
> >> > ssize_t ret;
> >> >
> >> > + if (copy_from_user(&unotif, buf, sizeof(unotif)))
> >> > + return -EFAULT;
> >> > +
> >> > + /* flags is reserved right now, make sure it's unset */
> >> > + if (unotif.flags)
> >> > + return -EINVAL;
> >> > +
> >>
> >> Might it make sense to use
> >>
> >> err = copy_struct_from_user(&unotif, sizeof(unotif), buf,
> >sizeof(unotif));
> >> if (err)
> >> return err;
> >>
> >> This way we check that the whole struct is 0 and report an error as
> >soon
> >> as one of the members is non-zero. That's more drastic but it'd
> >ensure
> >> that other fields can be used in the future for whatever purposes.
> >> It would also let us get rid of the memset() below.
> >
> >Given that this isn't an extensible struct, it would be simpler to just
> >do
> >check_zeroed_user() -- copy_struct_from_user() is overkill. That would
> >also remove the need for any copy_from_user()s and the memset can be
> >dropped by just doing
> >
> > struct seccomp_notif unotif = {};
> >
> >> > memset(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif));
> >> >
> >> > ret = down_interruptible(&filter->notif->request);
> >> > --
> >> > 2.20.1
> >> >
>
> It is an extensible struct. That's why we have notifier size checking built in.
Ah right, NOTIF_GET_SIZES. I reckon check_zeroed_user() is still a bit
simpler since none of the fields are used right now (and really, this
patch should be checking all of them, not just ->flags, if we want to
use any of them in the future).
But sure, copy_struct_from_user() also makes sense since it is
extensible (though I personally do find the whole NOTIF_GET_SIZES thing
a bit scary -- but that's water under the bridge at this point, and as
long as userspace is clever enough it shouldn't be a problem).
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-27 2:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-25 21:45 [PATCH] seccomp: Check flags on seccomp_notif is unset Sargun Dhillon
2019-12-26 11:52 ` Christian Brauner
2019-12-26 14:32 ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-12-26 14:34 ` Christian Brauner
2019-12-27 2:24 ` Aleksa Sarai [this message]
2019-12-27 2:31 ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-12-27 11:47 ` Christian Brauner
2019-12-27 14:22 ` Sargun Dhillon
2019-12-27 14:38 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-12-27 15:15 ` Aleksa Sarai
2019-12-27 15:32 ` Christian Brauner
2019-12-26 15:37 ` Tycho Andersen
2019-12-27 2:28 ` Aleksa Sarai
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=20191227022446.37e64ag4uaqms2w4@yavin.dot.cyphar.com \
--to=cyphar@cyphar.com \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sargun@sargun.me \
--cc=tycho@tycho.ws \
/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).