From: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: mcgrathr@google.com, hpa@zytor.com, indan@nul.nu,
netdev@parisplace.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com, mingo@redhat.com,
oleg@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net,
tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, serge.hallyn@canonical.com,
pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, corbet@lwn.net,
markus@chromium.org, coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
keescook@chromium.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
jmorris@namei.org, Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:07:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1337875681-20717-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120522173942.GJ11775@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
This is an RFC based on the comments from Al Viro and Eric Paris
regarding ptrace()rs being able to change the system call the kernel
sees after the seccomp enforcement has occurred (for mode 1 or 2).
With this series applied, a (p)tracer of a process with seccomp enabled
will be unable to change the tracee's system call number after the
secure computing check has been performed.
The x86 change is tested, as is the seccomp.c change. For other arches,
it is not (RFC :). Given that there are other inconsistencies in this
code across architectures, I'm not sure if it makes sense to attempt to
fix them all at once or to roll through as I attempt to add seccomp
filter support.
As is, the biggest benefit of this change is just setting consistent
expectations in what the ptrace/seccomp interactions should be. The
current ability for ptrace to "bypass" secure computing (by remapping
allowed system calls) is not necessarily a problem, but it is not
necessarily intuitive behavior.
Thoughts, comments, flames will be appreciated!
Will Drewry (3):
seccomp: Don't allow tracers to abuse RET_TRACE
arch/x86: move secure_computing after ptrace
arch/*: move secure_computing after trace
arch/arm/kernel/entry-common.S | 7 +------
arch/arm/kernel/ptrace.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------
arch/microblaze/kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++--
arch/mips/kernel/ptrace.c | 16 ++++++---------
arch/powerpc/kernel/ptrace.c | 5 +++--
arch/s390/kernel/ptrace.c | 6 +++---
arch/sh/kernel/ptrace_32.c | 5 +++--
arch/sh/kernel/ptrace_64.c | 5 +++--
arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace_64.c | 7 ++++---
arch/x86/kernel/ptrace.c | 13 ++++++------
kernel/seccomp.c | 4 ++++
11 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-24 16:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-21 18:21 seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? Eric Paris
2012-05-21 18:25 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-21 19:20 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-22 16:23 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 16:26 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 17:39 ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 20:26 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 20:34 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 20:48 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 21:07 ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 21:17 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-22 21:18 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 22:20 ` Al Viro
2012-05-22 21:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-22 21:14 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-22 21:37 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 16:07 ` Will Drewry [this message]
2012-05-24 16:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] seccomp: Don't allow tracers to abuse RET_TRACE Will Drewry
2012-05-24 17:54 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 18:24 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 20:17 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 16:08 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] arch/x86: move secure_computing after ptrace Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:08 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] arch/*: move secure_computing after trace Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:13 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 18:07 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-24 18:27 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 18:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-24 19:39 ` Indan Zupancic
2012-05-24 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2012-05-25 1:55 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 23:40 ` James Morris
2012-05-24 23:43 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-24 23:56 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-25 0:26 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-25 0:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-05-25 0:55 ` Andrew Lutomirski
2012-05-21 18:47 ` seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? richard -rw- weinberger
2012-05-21 19:13 ` H. Peter Anvin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1337875681-20717-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org \
--to=wad@chromium.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=indan@nul.nu \
--cc=jmorris@namei.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@mit.edu \
--cc=markus@chromium.org \
--cc=mcgrathr@google.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=netdev@parisplace.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=pmoore@redhat.com \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=serge.hallyn@canonical.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®