On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 2:07 PM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/21, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Hi Oleg,
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:51:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > > +
>> > > + if (WARN_ON(count != 1)) {
>> > > + /* The filter tree shouldn't shrink while we're using it. */
>> > > + ret = -ENOENT;
>> >
>> > Yes. but this looks a bit confusing. If we want this WARN_ON() check
>> > because we are paranoid, then we should do
>> >
>> > WARN_ON(count != 1 || filter);
>>
>> I guess you mean !filter here? We want filter to be non-null, because
>> we use it later.
>
> Yes, yes, sorry for confusion. And (if we could race with shrink) it
> could be NULL so this paranoid check is not complete.
>
>> > And "while we're using it" look misleading, we rely on ->siglock.
>> >
>> > Plus if we could be shrinked the additional check can't help anyway,
>> > we can used the free filter. So I don't really understand this check
>> > and "filter != NULL" in the previous "while (filter && count > 1)".
>> > Nevermind...
>>
>> Just paranoia. You're right that we could get rid of WARN_ON and the
>> null check. I can send an updated patch to drop these bits if
>> necessary. Kees?
>
> Just in case, I am fine either way, this is minor.
>
>> > In short. Who can attach a filter without "save => true" ?
>>
>> There are two kinds of BPF programs, a "classic" instruction set, and
>> an "extended" one (which has more features, like maps, that seccomp
>> probably wants to use someday). Right now, the kernel only supports
>> adding filters via the classic interface, which saves the orig_prog
>> and then converts it into the "extended" instruction set for internal
>> use in the kernel. This ptrace command just dumps the classic
>> programs.
>
> OK,
>
>> In the future, if there exists a seccomp interface to add extended BPF
>> programs directly, they won't have an orig_prog, which will trigger
>> this error.
>
> Hmm. It is not clear to me why this "new" interface won't or can't save
> orig_prog like we currently do. But this doesn't matter.
>
> If we know that currently this is not possible why should be confuse the
> reader? Can't we remove this code or turn it into WARN_ON(!orig_prog)
> to make it clear?
>
>
> And this leads to another question... If we expect that this interface
> can change later, then perhaps PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER should also
> dump some header before copy_to_user(fprog->filter) ? Say, just
> "unsigned long version" == 0 for now. So that we can avoid
> PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER_V2 in future.
>
> Tycho, Kees, to clarify, it is not that I really think we should do this,
> up to you. I am just asking.
There is a long and painful thread on this and eBPF. The tl;dr is
mostly: anything in the future will be using eBPF, and that already
has the bpf syscall it would be using for its work.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
