|
Message-Id: <20120406141936.25d68860.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 14:19:36 -0700 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...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, hpa@...or.com, 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, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, jmorris@...ei.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v17 10/15] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:01:55 -0500 Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote: > This change adds the SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO as a valid return value from a > seccomp filter. Additionally, it makes the first use of the lower > 16-bits for storing a filter-supplied errno. 16-bits is more than > enough for the errno-base.h calls. > > Returning errors instead of immediately terminating processes that > violate seccomp policy allow for broader use of this functionality > for kernel attack surface reduction. For example, a linux container > could maintain a whitelist of pre-existing system calls but drop > all new ones with errnos. This would keep a logically static attack > surface while providing errnos that may allow for graceful failure > without the downside of do_exit() on a bad call. > > > ... > > @@ -64,11 +65,17 @@ struct seccomp { > struct seccomp_filter *filter; > }; > > -extern void __secure_computing(int); > -static inline void secure_computing(int this_syscall) > +/* > + * Direct callers to __secure_computing should be updated as > + * CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER propagates. Are there any such callers? There's one I see in arm, but it's called from assembly code. > + */ > +extern void __secure_computing(int) __deprecated; > +extern int __secure_computing_int(int); > +static inline int secure_computing(int this_syscall) > { > if (unlikely(test_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP))) > - __secure_computing(this_syscall); > + return __secure_computing_int(this_syscall); > + return 0; > } > > ... > > void __secure_computing(int this_syscall) > { > + /* Filter calls should never use this function. */ > + BUG_ON(current->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER); > + __secure_computing_int(this_syscall); > +} > + > +int __secure_computing_int(int this_syscall) What the heck does "_int" mean here? I read it as "integer" but perhaps it's shorthand for "internal". Give us a better name, please. Or a code comment. > +{ > int mode = current->seccomp.mode; > int exit_sig = 0; > int *syscall; > + u32 ret = SECCOMP_RET_KILL; > + int data; > > switch (mode) { > case SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT:
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.