[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been running several instances of Qemu using a script written on top of virt-test[0]. After some weeks testing I could come up with this small list, and safely remove them without breaking anything. [0] - https://github.com/autotest/virt-test/wiki GIT: [PATCH 1/2] seccomp: no need to check arch in syscall whitelist GIT: [PATCH 2/2] seccomp: removing unused syscalls gtom whitelist
[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been running several instances of Qemu using a script written on top of virt-test[0]. After some weeks testing I could come up with this small list, and safely remove them without breaking anything. [0] - https://github.com/autotest/virt-test/wiki
[Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: v2 update: - set libseccomp 2.1.0 as requirement on configure script. - removed setrlimit and added sendfile64 to the whitelist. 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been running several instances of Qemu using a script written on top of virt-test[0]. After some weeks testing I could come up with this small list, and safely remove them without breaking anything. [0] - https://github.com/autotest/virt-test/wiki
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
Eduardo Otubo writes: > Hello all, > > In this small patch series I basically: Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats filtering. Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > v2 update: > - set libseccomp 2.1.0 as requirement on configure script. > - removed setrlimit and added sendfile64 to the whitelist. > > 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does > a > best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. > > 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've > been > running several instances of Qemu using a script written on top of > virt-test[0]. After some weeks testing I could come up with this small list, > and safely remove them without breaking anything. > > [0] - https://github.com/autotest/virt-test/wiki
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: Eduardo Otubo writes: Hello all, In this small patch series I basically: Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats filtering. Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. I'm running some tests with qemu && xen, I'll post a v3 by the end of the day. I'll format the cover letter in the correct way next time. Thanks, Regards, Anthony Liguori v2 update: - set libseccomp 2.1.0 as requirement on configure script. - removed setrlimit and added sendfile64 to the whitelist. 1) Remove the ifdef's for the (not so) new libseccomp version that does a best effort and translates x86_32 syscalls into x86_64 when possible. 2) Remove unused syscalls on the seccomp whitelist. For that removal, I've been running several instances of Qemu using a script written on top of virt-test[0]. After some weeks testing I could come up with this small list, and safely remove them without breaking anything. [0] - https://github.com/autotest/virt-test/wiki -- Eduardo Otubo IBM Linux Technology Center
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
Il 18/07/2013 18:35, Eduardo Otubo ha scritto: > > > On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Eduardo Otubo writes: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> In this small patch series I basically: >> >> Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats >> filtering. >> >> Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. > > I'm running some tests with qemu && xen, I'll post a v3 by the end of > the day. I'll format the cover letter in the correct way next time. I feel that, at some point, grep and code review must trump experiments... Paul, how did you guys handle this in other projects? Paolo
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 06:37:15 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 18/07/2013 18:35, Eduardo Otubo ha scritto: > > On 07/18/2013 01:28 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Eduardo Otubo writes: > >>> Hello all, > >> > >>> In this small patch series I basically: > >> Cover letter should be marked [PATCH 0/2]. Otherwise it defeats > >> filtering. > >> > >> Would like to see a Reviewed-by from someone before applying this. > > > > I'm running some tests with qemu && xen, I'll post a v3 by the end of > > the day. I'll format the cover letter in the correct way next time. > > I feel that, at some point, grep and code review must trump experiments... > > Paul, how did you guys handle this in other projects? To the best of my knowledge QEMU currently stands alone with its complexity and use of seccomp filtering. There are other applications, but they are either of the syscall sandboxing type where the users define the filters, or the rigid, smaller, well defined filter type. QEMU is both large and has a huge number of options which affect the syscalls used. At some point it would be nice to develop a mechanism to do some static analysis on a binary and its associated libraries to come up with a worst case filter (worst case because you might not want all the syscalls that a library uses, e.g. glibc). Unfortunately, we don't have such a tool the moment - it's hard enough generating correct filters with a nice architecture agnostic manner :) On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present we are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) so I'll be able to start turning some effort towards better tools and patches for existing applications. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present we > are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) ...AArch64 ? :-) -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present > > we are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) > > ...AArch64 ? :-) > Not yet, just 32-bit ARM EABI. If you've got a working system and are willing to so some hacking or run some tests we could work on it for a future libseccomp release. An emulated AArch64 VM would also work, but that route can be slow/annoying. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On 18 July 2013 21:05, Paul Moore wrote: > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: >> > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much >> > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at present >> > we are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) >> >> ...AArch64 ? :-) >> > > Not yet, just 32-bit ARM EABI. > > If you've got a working system and are willing to so some hacking or run some > tests we could work on it for a future libseccomp release. An emulated > AArch64 VM would also work, but that route can be slow/annoying. Simulators are all we have right now (we're juuust getting to the point where hardware is starting to become available). I wasn't being serious really, though I'm sure somebody (possibly even somebody at Red Hat :-)) will work around to it at some point. -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] seccomp: remove unused syscalls - for 1.6
On Thursday, July 18, 2013 10:31:46 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 July 2013 21:05, Paul Moore wrote: > > On Thursday, July 18, 2013 08:48:10 PM Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 18 July 2013 20:39, Paul Moore wrote: > >> > On the plus side, I think libseccomp is very close to being pretty much > >> > feature complete (excluding new architectures that may pop up, at > >> > present > >> > we are only x86, x86_64, x32, and ARM) > >> > >> ...AArch64 ? :-) > > > > Not yet, just 32-bit ARM EABI. > > > > If you've got a working system and are willing to so some hacking or run > > some tests we could work on it for a future libseccomp release. An > > emulated AArch64 VM would also work, but that route can be slow/annoying. > > Simulators are all we have right now (we're juuust getting to the > point where hardware is starting to become available). I wasn't > being serious really, though I'm sure somebody (possibly even > somebody at Red Hat :-)) will work around to it at some point. Regardless, consider it a standing offer. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat
