lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] seccomp: Provide matching filter for introspection
Date
On 08/02/2017 10:19 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> Both the upcoming logging improvements and changes to RET_KILL will need
> to know which filter a given seccomp return value originated from. In
> order to delay logic processing of result until after the seccomp loop,
> this adds a single pointer assignment on matches. This will allow both
> log and RET_KILL logic to work off the filter rather than doing more
> expensive tests inside the time-critical run_filters loop.
>
> Running tight cycles of getpid() with filters attached shows no measurable
> difference in speed.
>
> Suggested-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> kernel/seccomp.c | 11 ++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index 98b59b5db90b..8bdcf01379e4 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -171,10 +171,12 @@ static int seccomp_check_filter(struct sock_filter *filter, unsigned int flen)
> /**
> * seccomp_run_filters - evaluates all seccomp filters against @sd
> * @sd: optional seccomp data to be passed to filters
> + * @match: stores struct seccomp_filter that resulted in the return value
> *
> * Returns valid seccomp BPF response codes.
> */
> -static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> +static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> + struct seccomp_filter **match)
> {
> struct seccomp_data sd_local;
> u32 ret = SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW;

My version of this patch initialized *match to f here. The reason I did
that is because if BPF_PROG_RUN() returns RET_ALLOW for all
filters, I didn't want *match to remain NULL when seccomp_run_filters()
returns. FILTER_FLAG_LOG nor FILTER_FLAG_KILL_PROCESS would be affected
by this because they don't care about RET_ALLOW actions but there could
conceivably be a filter flag in the future that cares about RET_ALLOW
and not initializing *match to the first filter could result in a latent
bug for that filter flag.

I'm fine with not adding the initialization since this is a hot path and
it doesn't help any of the currently existing/planned filter flags but I
wanted to at least mention it.

Reviewed-by: Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>

Tyler

> @@ -198,8 +200,10 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> for (; f; f = f->prev) {
> u32 cur_ret = BPF_PROG_RUN(f->prog, sd);
>
> - if ((cur_ret & SECCOMP_RET_ACTION) < (ret & SECCOMP_RET_ACTION))
> + if ((cur_ret & SECCOMP_RET_ACTION) < (ret & SECCOMP_RET_ACTION)) {
> ret = cur_ret;
> + *match = f;
> + }
> }
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -566,6 +570,7 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> const bool recheck_after_trace)
> {
> u32 filter_ret, action;
> + struct seccomp_filter *match = NULL;
> int data;
>
> /*
> @@ -574,7 +579,7 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> */
> rmb();
>
> - filter_ret = seccomp_run_filters(sd);
> + filter_ret = seccomp_run_filters(sd, &match);
> data = filter_ret & SECCOMP_RET_DATA;
> action = filter_ret & SECCOMP_RET_ACTION;
>
>


[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-08 03:04    [W:0.377 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site