[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9hb3WxKxLZ2GuUrbDM--koW+a3ser5TU8y6+e0sAhOT9dw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:25:49 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net,
mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/8] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 02/16/2012 12:02 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
>> +
>> +/* Format of the data the BPF program executes over. */
>> +struct seccomp_data {
>> + int nr;
>> + __u32 __reserved[3];
>> + struct {
>> + __u32 lo;
>> + __u32 hi;
>> + } instruction_pointer;
>> + __u32 lo32[6];
>> + __u32 hi32[6];
>> +};
>>
>
> This seems more than a bit odd, no?
>
> -hpa
I agree :) BPF being a 32-bit creature introduced some edge cases. I
has started with a
union { u32 args32[6]; u64 args64[6]; }
This was somewhat derailed by CONFIG_COMPAT behavior where
syscall_get_arguments always writes to argument of register width --
not bad, just irritating (since a copy isn't strictly necessary nor
actually done in the patch). Also, Indan pointed out that while BPF
programs expect constants in the machine-local endian layout, any
consumers would need to change how they accessed the arguments across
big/little endian machines since a load of the low-order bits would
vary.
In a second pass, I attempted to resolve this like aio_abi.h:
union {
struct {
u32 ENDIAN_SWAP(lo32, hi32);
};
u64 arg64;
} args[6];
It wasn't clear that this actually made matters better (though it did
mean syscall_get_arguments() could write directly to arg64). Using
offsetof() in the user program would be fine, but any offsets set
another way would be invalid. At that point, I moved to Indan's
proposal to stabilize low order and high order offsets -- what is in
the patch series. Now a BPF program can reliably index into the low
bits of an argument and into the high bits without endianness changing
the filter program structure.
I don't feel strongly about any given data layout, and this one seems
to balance the 32-bit-ness of BPF and the impact that has on
endianness. I'm happy to hear alternatives that might be more
aesthetically pleasing :)
cheers!
will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
