Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1321425

Re: [RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS

From Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS
Date 2016-01-29 03:40 +0100
Message-ID <qW78B-4lQ-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qW5Jv-3s7-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> Tracing processes for syscall usage can be done one step at a time with
> SECCOMP_RET_TRAP, but this will block the syscall. Alternatively, using
> a ptrace manager to handle SECCOMP_RET_TRACE returns can be used but is
> heavy weight and depends on the ptrace infrastructure. A light-weight
> method to learn syscalls is needed, which can reuse the existing delivery
> of SIGSYS but without skipping the syscall. This is implemented as
> SECCOMP_RET_ACK which is as permissive as SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW but delivers
> SIGSYS after syscall completion, as long as the SECCOMP_RET_DATA is
> non-zero. A signal handler can install a new rule for each syscall as
> they are signaled with SECCOMP_RET_DATA set to 0 to disable reporting
> for that syscall in the future (which is required for restarting syscalls
> that are signal-sensitive like nanosleep).
>
> Registers from the signal will reflect registers after the syscall returns
> rather than before. Signal-sensitive syscalls will trigger EINTR, so they
> must be whitelisted before they are resumed. Not allowing the sigreturn
> syscall (and likely prctl to whitelist) will make using SECCOMP_RET_ACK
> useless.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>

Could this use task_work to queue the signal on return to user mode
instead?  Would that solve the EINTR issues?

--Andy

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2016-01-29 02:10 +0100
  Re: [RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-29 03:40 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@google.com> - 2016-01-29 04:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC][PATCH] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ACK for non-fatal SIGSYS Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2016-01-31 21:20 +0100

csiph-web