Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions

From	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions
Date	2017-02-16 21:10 +0100
Message-ID	<tbAxj-2RL-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<taChP-4Iv-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <taChP-4Iv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tbkLT-nc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <tbzhV-1Tc-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <tbzBg-2gu-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 02/16/2017 01:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> wrote:
>> On 02/15/2017 09:14 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> wrote:
>>>> This patch creates a read-only sysctl containing an ordered list of
>>>> seccomp actions that the kernel supports. The ordering, from left to
>>>> right, is the lowest action value (kill) to the highest action value
>>>> (allow). Currently, a read of the sysctl file would return "kill trap
>>>> errno trace allow". The contents of this sysctl file can be useful for
>>>> userspace code as well as the system administrator.
>>>
>>> Would this make more sense as a new seccomp(2) mode a la
>>> SECCOMP_HAS_ACTION?  Then sandboxy things that have no fs access could
>>> use it.
>>>
>>
>> It would make sense for code that needs to check which actions are
>> available. It wouldn't make sense for administrators that need to check
>> which actions are available unless libseccomp provided a wrapper utility.
>>
>> Is this a theoretical concern or do you know of a sandboxed piece of
>> code that cannot access the sysctl before constructing a seccomp filter?
>>
> 
> It's semi-theoretical.  But suppose I unshare namespaces, unmount a
> bunch of stuff, then ask libseccomp to install a filter.  (I've
> written code that does exactly that.)   libseccomp won't be able to
> read the sysctl.

That's a good point. It seems like we might need both mechanisms
(SECCOMP_HAS_ACTION for code and actions_avail for humans).

Tyler

> 
> --Andy
>

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

Thread

[PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-02-14 04:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> - 2017-02-16 02:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-02-16 19:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-02-16 04:20 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-02-16 19:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2017-02-16 20:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] seccomp: Add sysctl to display available actions Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com> - 2017-02-16 21:10 +0100

csiph-web