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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1221822

Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Tycho Andersen
<tycho.andersen@canonical.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 04:44:24PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Tycho Andersen
>> <tycho.andersen@canonical.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Here's a thought,
>> >
>> > The set I'm currently proposing effectively separates the ref-counting
>> > of the struct seccomp_filter from the struct bpf_prog (by necessity,
>> > since we're referring to filters from fds). What if we went a little
>> > futher, and made a copy of each seccomp_filter on fork(), keeping it
>> > pointed at the same bpf_prog but adding some metadata about how it was
>> > inherited (tsk->seccomp.filter->inheritence_count++ perhaps). This
>> > would still require this change:
>>
>> Won't that break the tsync mechanism?
>
> We'll need the change I posted (is_ancestor comparing the underlying
> bpf_prog instead of the seccomp_filter), but then I think it'll work.
> I guess we'll need to do some more bookkeeping when we install filters
> via TSYNC since each thread would need its own seccomp_filter, and
> we'd also have to decide whether a filter installed via TSYNC was
> inherited or not.
>
> Am I missing something?

Yes.  I don't think that:

int fd = [create an ebpf fd];
if (fork()) {
  /* Process A */
  seccomp(attach fd);
  ...
} else {
  /* Process B */
  seccomp(attach fd);
  ...
}

should result in processes A and B being considered to have the same
seccomp_filter state.  In particular, I eventually want to make the
seccomp_filter state be considerably more interesting than just the
bpf program.

IOW I really do think that seccomp_filter should have identity.

There's another severe problem, I think.  Suppose that ebpf1 and ebpf2
are ebpf fds.  If processes C and D start out with no filters at all,
C attaches ebpf1 and ebpf2, and D attaches just ebpf2, then C and D
are definitely *not* in the same state, and neither is an ancestor of
the other.

--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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

Thread

Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@canonical.com> - 2015-09-10 00:40 +0200
  Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-09-10 01:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@canonical.com> - 2015-09-10 02:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> - 2015-09-10 02:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 3/6] ebpf: add a way to dump an eBPF program Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@canonical.com> - 2015-09-10 03:00 +0200

csiph-web