lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: For review: seccomp_user_notif(2) manual page [v2]
From
Date
Hello Christian

Thanks for taking a look at the page.

On 10/29/20 4:26 PM, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:55:04AM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi all (and especially Tycho and Sargun),
>>
>> Following review comments on the first draft (thanks to Jann, Kees,
>> Christian and Tycho), I've made a lot of changes to this page.
>> I've also added a few FIXMEs relating to outstanding API issues.
>> I'd like a second pass review of the page before I release it.
>> But also, this mail serves as a way of noting the outstanding API
>> issues.
>>
>> Tycho: I still have an outstanding question for you at [2].
>>
>> Sargun: can you please prepare something on SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SETFD
>> and SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD to be added to this page?
>>
>> I've shown the rendered version of the page below. The page source
>> currently sits in a branch at
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=seccomp_user_notif
>>
>> At this point, I'm mainly interested in feedback about the FIXMEs,
>> some of which relate to the text of the page itself, while the
>> others relate to the various outstanding API issues. The first
>> FIXME provides a small opportunity for some bikeshedding :-);
>
> I like this manpage. I think this is the most comprehensive explanation
> of any seccomp feature

Thanks (at least, I think so...)

> and somewhat understandable.
^^^^^^^^

(... but I'm not sure ;-).)

> Just tiny comments below, hopefully no bike-shedding though. :)

Most relevant point for bikeshedding is the page name. I plan
to change it to seccomp_unotify(2) (shorter, reads better out loud).

>> Thanks,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/45f07f17-18b6-d187-0914-6f341fe90857@gmail.com/
>> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/8f20d586-9609-ef83-c85a-272e37e684d8@gmail.com/
>>
>> =====
>>
>> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF(2) Linux Programmer's Manual SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF(2)

[...]

>> An overview of the steps performed by the target and the
>> supervisor is as follows:
>>
>> 1. The target establishes a seccomp filter in the usual manner,
>> but with two differences:
>>
>> · The seccomp(2) flags argument includes the flag
>> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER. Consequently, the return
>> value of the (successful) seccomp(2) call is a new
>> "listening" file descriptor that can be used to receive
>> notifications. Only one "listening" seccomp filter can be
>> installed for a thread.
>>
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │Is the last sentence above correct? │
>> │ │
>> │Kees Cook (25 Oct 2020) notes: │
>> │ │
>> │I like this limitation, but I expect that it'll need │
>> │to change in the future. Even with LSMs, we see the │
>> │need for arbitrary stacking, and the idea of there │
>> │being only 1 supervisor will eventually break down. │
>> │Right now there is only 1 because only container │
>> │managers are using this feature. But if some daemon │
>> │starts using it to isolate some thread, suddenly it │
>> │might break if a container manager is trying to │
>> │listen to it too, etc. I expect it won't be needed │
>> │soon, but I do think it'll change. │
>> │ │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>>
>> · In cases where it is appropriate, the seccomp filter returns
>> the action value SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF. This return value
>> will trigger a notification event.
>>
>> 2. In order that the supervisor can obtain notifications using
>> the listening file descriptor, (a duplicate of) that file
>> descriptor must be passed from the target to the supervisor.
>> One way in which this could be done is by passing the file
>> descriptor over a UNIX domain socket connection between the
>> target and the supervisor (using the SCM_RIGHTS ancillary
>> message type described in unix(7)).
>
> Fwiw, on newer kernels you could also use pidfd_getfd() for that.

Thanks. I added that to the text.

>> 3. The supervisor will receive notification events on the
>> listening file descriptor. These events are returned as
>> structures of type seccomp_notif. Because this structure and
>> its size may evolve over kernel versions, the supervisor must
>> first determine the size of this structure using the
>> seccomp(2) SECCOMP_GET_NOTIF_SIZES operation, which returns a
>> structure of type seccomp_notif_sizes. The supervisor
>> allocates a buffer of size seccomp_notif_sizes.seccomp_notif
>> bytes to receive notification events. In addition,the
>> supervisor allocates another buffer of size
>> seccomp_notif_sizes.seccomp_notif_resp bytes for the response
>> (a struct seccomp_notif_resp structure) that it will provide
>> to the kernel (and thus the target).
>>
>> 4. The target then performs its workload, which includes system
>> calls that will be controlled by the seccomp filter. Whenever
>> one of these system calls causes the filter to return the
>> SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value, the kernel does not (yet)
>> execute the system call; instead, execution of the target is
>> temporarily blocked inside the kernel (in a sleep state that
>> is interruptible by signals) and a notification event is
>> generated on the listening file descriptor.
>>
>> 5. The supervisor can now repeatedly monitor the listening file
>> descriptor for SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF-triggered events. To do
>> this, the supervisor uses the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV
>> ioctl(2) operation to read information about a notification
>> event; this operation blocks until an event is available. The
>
> Maybe mention that users can choose to either use the blocking ioctl()
> directly or use poll semantics and point to the section below.

Thanks. I added mention of the poll/select/epoll here.

> (Do we support O_NONBLOCK with SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV and if not should
> we?)

A quick test suggests that O_NONBLOCK has no effect on the blocking
behavior of SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV.

(I've added your question and this info as a FIXME in the page.)

>> operation returns a seccomp_notif structure containing
>> information about the system call that is being attempted by
>> the target.
>>
>> 6. The seccomp_notif structure returned by the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation includes the same
>> information (a seccomp_data structure) that was passed to the
>> seccomp filter. This information allows the supervisor to
>> discover the system call number and the arguments for the
>> target's system call. In addition, the notification event
>> contains the ID of the thread that triggered the notification
>> and a unique cookie value that is used in subsequent
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID and SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND
>> operations.
>>
>> The information in the notification can be used to discover
>> the values of pointer arguments for the target's system call.
>> (This is something that can't be done from within a seccomp
>> filter.) One way in which the supervisor can do this is to
>> open the corresponding /proc/[tid]/mem file (see proc(5)) and
>> read bytes from the location that corresponds to one of the
>> pointer arguments whose value is supplied in the notification
>> event. (The supervisor must be careful to avoid a race
>> condition that can occur when doing this; see the description
>> of the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID ioctl(2) operation below.)
>> In addition, the supervisor can access other system
>> information that is visible in user space but which is not
>> accessible from a seccomp filter.
>>
>> 7. Having obtained information as per the previous step, the
>> supervisor may then choose to perform an action in response to
>> the target's system call (which, as noted above, is not
>> executed when the seccomp filter returns the
>> SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF action value).
>>
>> One example use case here relates to containers. The target
>> may be located inside a container where it does not have
>> sufficient capabilities to mount a filesystem in the
>> container's mount namespace. However, the supervisor may be a
>> more privileged process that does have sufficient capabilities
>> to perform the mount operation.
>>
>> 8. The supervisor then sends a response to the notification. The
>> information in this response is used by the kernel to
>> construct a return value for the target's system call and
>> provide a value that will be assigned to the errno variable of
>> the target.
>>
>> The response is sent using the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND
>> ioctl(2) operation, which is used to transmit a
>> seccomp_notif_resp structure to the kernel. This structure
>> includes a cookie value that the supervisor obtained in the
>> seccomp_notif structure returned by the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. This cookie value allows
>> the kernel to associate the response with the target. This
>> structure must include the cookie value that the supervisor
>> obtained in the seccomp_notif structure returned by the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation; the cookie allows the
>> kernel to associate the response with the target.
>>
>> 9. Once the notification has been sent, the system call in the
>> target thread unblocks, returning the information that was
>> provided by the supervisor in the notification response.
>>
>> As a variation on the last two steps, the supervisor can send a
>> response that tells the kernel that it should execute the target
>> thread's system call; see the discussion of
>> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE, below.
>>
>> ioctl(2) operations
>> The following ioctl(2) operations are provided to support seccomp
>> user-space notification. For each of these operations, the first
>
> Hm, since the ioctls() are associatd with the seccomp notify file
> descriptor maybe we should rephrase this a bit to make this more
> obvious:
> "[...] ioctl(2) operations are supported by the seccomp user-space file descriptor"
> That might line-uper better with the following sentence. Just a thought,
> feel free to ignore.

Yep, your idea is better. I changed the text.

>> (file descriptor) argument of ioctl(2) is the listening file
>> descriptor returned by a call to seccomp(2) with the
>> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER flag.
>>
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV
>> This operation is used to obtain a user-space notification
>> event. If no such event is currently pending, the
>> operation blocks until an event occurs. The third
>> ioctl(2) argument is a pointer to a structure of the
>> following form which contains information about the event.
>> This structure must be zeroed out before the call.
>>
>> struct seccomp_notif {
>> __u64 id; /* Cookie */
>> __u32 pid; /* TID of target thread */
>> __u32 flags; /* Currently unused (0) */
>> struct seccomp_data data; /* See seccomp(2) */
>> };
>>
>> The fields in this structure are as follows:
>>
>> id This is a cookie for the notification. Each such
>> cookie is guaranteed to be unique for the
>> corresponding seccomp filter.
>>
>> · It can be used with the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID ioctl(2) operation
>> to verify that the target is still alive.
>>
>> · When returning a notification response to the
>> kernel, the supervisor must include the cookie
>> value in the seccomp_notif_resp structure that is
>> specified as the argument of the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND operation.
>>
>> pid This is the thread ID of the target thread that
>> triggered the notification event.
>>
>> flags This is a bit mask of flags providing further
>> information on the event. In the current
>> implementation, this field is always zero.
>
> I think we haven't settled whether this is input or output only. I guess
> we could technically use it for both.

So, change something here in the page?

>
>>
>> data This is a seccomp_data structure containing
>> information about the system call that triggered
>> the notification. This is the same structure that
>> is passed to the seccomp filter. See seccomp(2)
>> for details of this structure.
>>
>> On success, this operation returns 0; on failure, -1 is
>> returned, and errno is set to indicate the cause of the
>> error. This operation can fail with the following errors:
>>
>> EINVAL (since Linux 5.5)
>> The seccomp_notif structure that was passed to the
>> call contained nonzero fields.
>>
>> ENOENT The target thread was killed by a signal as the
>> notification information was being generated, or
>> the target's (blocked) system call was interrupted
>> by a signal handler.
>
> (Technically also EFAULT because the user provided a garbage address.)

Yeah. But that error is kind of presumed anywhere a pointer
is provided.

>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │From my experiments, it appears that if a │
>> │SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV is done after the target │
>> │thread terminates, then the ioctl() simply blocks │
>> │(rather than returning an error to indicate that the │
>> │target no longer exists). │
>> │ │
>> │I found that surprising, and it required some │
>> │contortions in the example program. It was not │
>> │possible to code my SIGCHLD handler (which reaps the │
>> │zombie when the worker/target terminates) to simply │
>> │set a flag checked in the main handleNotifications() │
>> │loop, since this created an unavoidable race where │
>> │the child might terminate just after I had checked │
>> │the flag, but before I blocked (forever!) in the │
>> │SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. Instead, I had │
>> │to code the signal handler to simply call _exit(2) │
>> │in order to terminate the parent process (the │
>> │supervisor). │
>> │ │
>> │Is this expected behavior? It seems to me rather │
>> │desirable that SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV should give │
>> │an error if the target has terminated. │
>> │ │
>> │Jann posted a patch to rectify this, but there was │
>> │no response (Lore link: https://bit.ly/3jvUBxk) to │
>> │his question about fixing this issue. (I've tried │
>> │building with the patch, but encountered an issue │
>> │with the target process entering D state after a │
>> │signal.) │
>> │ │
>> │For now, this behavior is documented in BUGS. │
>> │ │
>> │Kees Cook commented: Let's change [this] ASAP! │
>> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
>>
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID
>> This operation can be used to check that a notification ID
>> returned by an earlier SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation
>> is still valid (i.e., that the target still exists and its
>> system call is still blocked waiting for a response).
>>
>> The third ioctl(2) argument is a pointer to the cookie
>> (id) returned by the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation.
>>
>> This operation is necessary to avoid race conditions that
>> can occur when the pid returned by the
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation terminates, and that
>> process ID is reused by another process. An example of
>> this kind of race is the following
>>
>> 1. A notification is generated on the listening file
>> descriptor. The returned seccomp_notif contains the
>> TID of the target thread (in the pid field of the
>> structure).
>>
>> 2. The target terminates.
>>
>> 3. Another thread or process is created on the system that
>> by chance reuses the TID that was freed when the target
>> terminated.
>>
>> 4. The supervisor open(2)s the /proc/[tid]/mem file for
>> the TID obtained in step 1, with the intention of (say)
>> inspecting the memory location(s) that containing the
>> argument(s) of the system call that triggered the
>> notification in step 1.
>>
>> In the above scenario, the risk is that the supervisor may
>> try to access the memory of a process other than the
>> target. This race can be avoided by following the call to
>> open(2) with a SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID operation to
>> verify that the process that generated the notification is
>> still alive. (Note that if the target terminates after
>> the latter step, a subsequent read(2) from the file
>> descriptor may return 0, indicating end of file.)
>>
>> On success (i.e., the notification ID is still valid),
>> this operation returns 0. On failure (i.e., the
>> notification ID is no longer valid), -1 is returned, and
>> errno is set to ENOENT.
>>
>> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND
>> This operation is used to send a notification response
>> back to the kernel. The third ioctl(2) argument of this
>> structure is a pointer to a structure of the following
>> form:
>>
>> struct seccomp_notif_resp {
>> __u64 id; /* Cookie value */
>> __s64 val; /* Success return value */
>> __s32 error; /* 0 (success) or negative
>> error number */
>> __u32 flags; /* See below */
>> };
>>
>> The fields of this structure are as follows:
>>
>> id This is the cookie value that was obtained using
>> the SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV operation. This
>> cookie value allows the kernel to correctly
>> associate this response with the system call that
>> triggered the user-space notification.
>>
>> val This is the value that will be used for a spoofed
>> success return for the target's system call; see
>> below.
>>
>> error This is the value that will be used as the error
>> number (errno) for a spoofed error return for the
>> target's system call; see below.
>>
>> flags This is a bit mask that includes zero or more of
>> the following flags:
>>
>> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE (since Linux 5.5)
>> Tell the kernel to execute the target's
>> system call.
>>
>> Two kinds of response are possible:
>>
>> · A response to the kernel telling it to execute the
>> target's system call. In this case, the flags field
>> includes SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE and the error
>> and val fields must be zero.
>>
>> This kind of response can be useful in cases where the
>> supervisor needs to do deeper analysis of the target's
>> system call than is possible from a seccomp filter
>> (e.g., examining the values of pointer arguments), and,
>> having decided that the system call does not require
>> emulation by the supervisor, the supervisor wants the
>> system call to be executed normally in the target.
>>
>> The SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE flag should be used
>> with caution; see NOTES.
>>
>> · A spoofed return value for the target's system call. In
>> this case, the kernel does not execute the target's
>> system call, instead causing the system call to return a
>> spoofed value as specified by fields of the
>> seccomp_notif_resp structure. The supervisor should set
>> the fields of this structure as follows:
>>
>> + flags does not contain
>> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE.
>>
>> + error is set either to 0 for a spoofed "success"
>> return or to a negative error number for a spoofed
>> "failure" return. In the former case, the kernel
>> causes the target's system call to return the value
>> specified in the val field. In the later case, the
>
> Not a native English speaker but shouldn't this be "latter"?

Yup!

>> kernel causes the target's system call to return -1,
>> and errno is assigned the negated error value.
>>
>> + val is set to a value that will be used as the return
>> value for a spoofed "success" return for the target's
>> system call. The value in this field is ignored if
>> the error field contains a nonzero value.
>>
>> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
>> │FIXME │
>> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
>> │Kees Cook suggested: │
>> │ │
>> │Strictly speaking, this is architecture specific, │
>> │but all architectures do it this way. Should seccomp │
>> │enforce val == 0 when err != 0 ? │
>
> Feels like it should, at least for the SEND ioctl where we already
> verify that val and err are both 0 when CONTINUE is specified (as you
> pointed out correctly above).

Your comments ended here (with no sign-off). Was that intentional?

Thanks,

Michael


--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-29 21:03    [W:0.202 / U:1.800 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site