On 02/07/2017 06:33 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 9:37 PM, Tyler Hicks <[email protected]> wrote: >> Add a new action, SECCOMP_RET_LOG, that logs a syscall before allowing >> the syscall. At the implementation level, this action is identical to >> the existing SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW action. However, it can be very useful when >> initially developing a seccomp filter for an application. The developer >> can set the default action to be SECCOMP_RET_LOG, maybe mark any >> obviously needed syscalls with SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW, and then put the >> application through its paces. A list of syscalls that triggered the >> default action (SECCOMP_RET_LOG) can be easily gleaned from the logs and >> that list can be used to build the syscall whitelist. Finally, the >> developer can change the default action to the desired value. >> >> This provides a more friendly experience than seeing the application get >> killed, then updating the filter and rebuilding the app, seeing the >> application get killed due to a different syscall, then updating the >> filter and rebuilding the app, etc. >> >> The functionality is similar to what's supported by the various LSMs. >> SELinux has permissive mode, AppArmor has complain mode, SMACK has >> bring-up mode, etc. >> >> SECCOMP_RET_LOG is given a lower value than SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW so that >> "allow" can be written to the max_action_to_log sysctl in order to get a >> list of logged actions without the, potentially larger, set of allowed >> actions. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tyler Hicks <[email protected]> >> --- >> Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt | 6 ++++++ >> include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h | 1 + >> kernel/seccomp.c | 4 ++++ >> 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt >> b/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt >> index 1e469ef..ba55a91 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt >> @@ -138,6 +138,12 @@ SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: >> allow use of ptrace, even of other sandboxed processes, without >> extreme care; ptracers can use this mechanism to escape.) >> >> +SECCOMP_RET_LOG: >> + Results in the system call being executed after it is logged. This >> + should be used by application developers to learn which syscalls >> their >> + application needs without having to iterate through multiple test and >> + development cycles to build the list. >> + >> SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW: >> Results in the system call being executed. >> >> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h >> index 0f238a4..67f72cd 100644 >> --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h >> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ >> #define SECCOMP_RET_TRAP 0x00030000U /* disallow and force a SIGSYS */ >> #define SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO 0x00050000U /* returns an errno */ >> #define SECCOMP_RET_TRACE 0x7ff00000U /* pass to a tracer or disallow >> */ >> +#define SECCOMP_RET_LOG 0x7ffe0000U /* allow after logging */ > > This adds to UAPI, so it'd be good to think for a moment about how > this would work on older kernels: right now, if someone tried to use > this RET_LOG on an old kernel, it'll get treated like RET_KILL. Is > this sane?
It is not sane for userspace code to blindly attempt to use a new
feature on an old kernel. One of the main motivations of the
actions_avail sysctl is to allow userspace to be smart about what the
current kernel supports.
I'll be adding logic (requested by Paul) to libseccomp that checks this
sysctl when SECOMP_RET_LOG is attempted to be used. Programs that don't
use libseccomp will have to do something similar.
>
> I'm also trying to figure out if there is some other solution to this,
> but they all involve tests against an otherwise RET_ALLOW case, which
> I want to avoid. :)
>
> So, I think, for now, this looks good, but I'd prefer this be
> 0x7ffc0000U, just to make sure we have not painted ourselves into a
> numerical corner if we for some reason ever need to put something
> between RET_ALLOW and RET_LOG.
That makes sense. I'll do that in v3.
>
>> #define SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW 0x7fff0000U /* allow */
>>
>> /* Masks for the return value sections. */
>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> index 548fb89..8627481 100644
>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> @@ -650,6 +650,7 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const
>> struct seccomp_data *sd,
>>
>> return 0;
>>
>> + case SECCOMP_RET_LOG:
>
> Given my protective feelings about the RET_ALLOW case, can you make
> this a fully separate case statement? I'd rather have RET_ALLOW be
> distinctly separate.
Sure! It actually has to be two different cases now that we're doing the
hot path approach for SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW.
Tyler
>
>> case SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW:
>> seccomp_log(this_syscall, 0, action);
>> return 0;
>> @@ -934,6 +935,7 @@ long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task,
>> unsigned long filter_off,
>> #define SECCOMP_RET_TRAP_NAME "trap"
>> #define SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO_NAME "errno"
>> #define SECCOMP_RET_TRACE_NAME "trace"
>> +#define SECCOMP_RET_LOG_NAME "log"
>> #define SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW_NAME "allow"
>>
>> /* Largest strlen() of all action names */
>> @@ -943,6 +945,7 @@ static char seccomp_actions_avail[] =
>> SECCOMP_RET_KILL_NAME " "
>> SECCOMP_RET_TRAP_NAME " "
>> SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO_NAME " "
>> SECCOMP_RET_TRACE_NAME " "
>> + SECCOMP_RET_LOG_NAME " "
>> SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW_NAME;
>>
>> struct seccomp_action_name {
>> @@ -955,6 +958,7 @@ static struct seccomp_action_name seccomp_action_names[]
>> = {
>> { SECCOMP_RET_TRAP, SECCOMP_RET_TRAP_NAME },
>> { SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO, SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO_NAME },
>> { SECCOMP_RET_TRACE, SECCOMP_RET_TRACE_NAME },
>> + { SECCOMP_RET_LOG, SECCOMP_RET_LOG_NAME },
>> { SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW, SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW_NAME },
>> { }
>> };
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>
> -Kees
>
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
