On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 02:04:57PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This is my attempt at a brain-dump on my plans for nearish-term seccomp
> features. Welcome to my TED talk... ;)
>
> These are the things I've been thinking about:
>
> - fd passing
> - deep argument inspection
> - changing structure sizes
> - syscall bitmasks
>
> So, diving right in:
>
>
> ## fd passing
>
> Background: seccomp users want to be able to install an fd in a
> monitored process during a user_notif to emulate "open" calls (or
> similar), possibly across security boundaries, etc.
>
> On the fd passing front, it seems that gaining pidfd_addfd() is the way
> to go as it allows for generic use not tied to seccomp in particular.
> I expect this feature will be developed orthogonally to seccomp (where
> does this stand, BTW?). However, as Sargun has shown[1], seccomp could
> be friendlier to help with using it. Things that need to be resolved:
>
> - report pidnr, or pidfd? It seems the consensus is to pass pidnr, but
> if we're going to step back and make some design choices here, is
> there a place for pidfds in seccomp user_notif, in order to avoid
> needing the user_notif cookie? I think probably not: it's a rather lot
> of overhead for notifications. It seems it's safe to perform an fd
> installation with these steps:
> - get pidnr from user_notif_recv
> - open pidfd from pidnr
> - re-verify user_notif cookie is still valid
> - send new fd via pidfd
> - reply with user_notif_send
> - close pidfd
Yep, this looks safe.
> - how to deal with changing sizes of the user_notif structures to
> include a pidnr. (Which will be its own topic below.)
>
>
> ## deep argument inspection
>
> Background: seccomp users would like to write filters that traverse
> the user pointers passed into many syscalls, but seccomp can't do this
> dereference for a variety of reasons (mostly involving race conditions and
> rearchitecting the entire kernel syscall and copy_from_user() code flows).
>
> During the last plumbers and in conversations since, the grudging
> consensus was reached that having seccomp do this for ALL syscalls was
> likely going to be extremely disruptive for very little gain (i.e.
> many things, like pathnames, have differing lifetimes, aliases, unstable
> kernel object references, etc[6]), but that there were a small subset of
> syscalls for which this WOULD be beneficial, and those are the newly
> created "Extensible Argument" syscalls (is there a better name for this
> design? I'm calling it "EA" for the rest of the email), like clone3(),
> openat2(), etc, which pass a pointer and a size:
>
> long clone3(struct clone_args *cl_args, size_t size);
>
> I think it should be possible to extend seccomp to examine this structure
> by appending it to seccomp_data, and allowing filters to examine the
> contents. This means that no BPF language extensions are required for
> seccomp, as I'd still prefer to avoid making the eBPF jump (I don't think
> seccomp's design principles work well with maps, kernel helpers, etc,
> and I think the earlier the examination of using eBPF for user_notif
> bares this out).
>
> In order for this to work, there are a number of prerequisites:
>
> - argument caching, in two halves: syscall side and seccomp side:
> - the EA syscalls needs to include awareness of potential seccomp
> hooking. i.e. seccomp may have done the copy_from_user() already and
> kept a cached copy.
> - seccomp needs to potentially DO the copy_from_user() itself when it
> hits these syscalls for a given filter, and put it somewhere for
> later use by the syscall.
> - the sizes of these EA structs are, by design, growable over time.
> seccomp and its users need to be handle this in a forward and backward
> compatible way, similar to the design of the EA syscall interface
> itself.
>
> The argument caching bit is, I think, rather mechanical in nature since
> it's all "just" internal to the kernel: seccomp can likely adjust how it
> allocates seccomp_data (maybe going so far as to have it split across two
> pages with the syscall argument struct always starting on the 2nd page
> boundary), and copying the EA struct into that page, which will be both
> used by the filter and by the syscall. I imagine state tracking ("is
> there a cached EA?", "what is the address of seccomp_data?", "what is
> the address of the EA?") can be associated with the thread struct.
>
> The growing size of the EA struct will need some API design. For filters
> to operate on the contiguous seccomp_data+EA struct, the filter will
> need to know how large seccomp_data is (more on this later), and how
> large the EA struct is. When the filter is written in userspace, it can
> do the math, point into the expected offsets, and get what it needs. For
> this to work correctly in the kernel, though, the seccomp BPF verifier
> needs to know the size of the EA struct as well, so it can correctly
> perform the offset checking (as it currently does for just the
> seccomp_data struct size).
>
> Since there is not really any caller-based "seccomp state" associated
> across seccomp(2) calls, I don't think we can add a new command to tell
> the kernel "I'm expecting the EA struct size to be $foo bytes", since
> the kernel doesn't track who "I" is besides just being "current", which
> doesn't take into account the thread lifetime -- if a process launcher
> knows about one size and the child knows about another, things will get
> confused. The sizes really are just associated with individual filters,
> based on the syscalls they're examining. So, I have thoughts on possible
> solutions:
>
> - create a new seccomp command SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER2 which uses the
> EA style so we can pass in more than a filter and include also an
> array of syscall to size mappings. (I don't like this...)
> - create a new filter flag, SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_EXTENSIBLE, which changes
> the meaning of the uarg from "filter" to a EA-style structure with
> sizes and pointers to the filter and an array of syscall to size
> mappings. (I like this slightly better, but I still don't like it.)
> - leverage the EA design and just accept anything <= PAGE_SIZE, record
> the "max offset" value seen during filter verification, and zero-fill
> the EA struct with zeros to that size when constructing the
> seccomp_data + EA struct that the filter will examine. Then the seccomp
> filter doesn't care what any of the sizes are, and userspace doesn't
> care what any of the sizes are. (I like this as it makes the problems
> to solve contained entirely by the seccomp infrastructure and does not
> touch user API, but I worry I'm missing some gotcha I haven't
> considered.)
This sounds pretty nice to me :)
> And then, my age-old concern, that maybe doesn't need a solution... I
> remain plagued by the lack of pathname inspection. But I think the
> ToCToU nature of it means we just cannot do it from seccomp. It does
> make filtering openat2()'s EA struct a bit funny... a filter has no idea
> what path it applies to... but that doesn't matter because the object
> the path points to might change[6] during the syscall. Argh.
>
>
> ## changing structure sizes
>
> Background: there have been regular needs to add things to various
> seccomp structures. Each come with their own unique pains, and solving
> this as completely as possible in a future-proof way would be very nice.
>
> As noted in "fd passing" above, there is a desire to add some useful
> things to the user_notif struct (e.g. thread group pid). Similarly,
> there have been requests in the past (though I can't find any good
> references right now, just my indirect comments[3]) to grow seccomp_data.
> Combined with the EA struct work above, there's a clear need for seccomp
> to reexamine how it deals with its API structures (and how this
> interacts with filters).
>
> First, let's consider seccomp_data. If we grow it, the EA struct offset
> will move, based on the deep arg inspection design above. Alternatively,
> we could instead put seccomp_data offset 0, and EA struct at offset
> PAGE_SIZE, and treat seccomp_data itself as an EA struct where we let
> the filter access whatever it thinks is there, with it being zero-filled
> by the kernel. For any values where 0 is valid, there will just need to
> be a "is that field valid?" bit before it:
>
> unsigned long feature_bits;
> unsigned long interesting_thing_1;
> unsigned long interesting_thing_2;
> unsigned long interesting_thing_3;
> ...
>
> and the filter would check feature_bits...
>
> (However, this needs to be carefully considered given that seccomp_data
> is embedded in user_notif... should the EA struct from userspace also be
> copied into user_notif? More thoughts on this below...)
>
> For user_notif, I think we need something in and around these options:
>
> - make a new API that explicitly follows EA struct design
> (and while read()/write() might be easier[4], I tend to agree with
> Jann and we need to stick to ioctl(): as Tycho noted, "read/write is
> for data". Though I wonder if read() could be used for the notifications,
> which ARE data, and use ioctl() for the responses?)
> - make a new API that is perf_event_open()-style where fields are
> explicitly requested, as Sargun suggested[5]. (This looks like it
> might be complex to construct, but would get us by far the most
> extensible API.)
This already exists, and was my original intent with the current API.
You can add new ioctl()s:
struct seccomp_interesting_stuff {
__u16 size;
__u64 id;
__u64 interesting_thing_1;
__u64 interesting_thing_2;
};
ioctl(listener, SECCOMP_IOCTL_GET_INTERESTING_STUFF, &buf);
The original intent was that you could either grow one of these
structures, or add a new one. It's not clear to me really *why* we
need a whole new API where everything fits into one structure.
Or, we could build a requested fields approach that you discuss on
top. But I don't see a reason to add a whole new RECV2.
> - jam whatever we pick into the existing API (we'll be forced to do
> SOMETHING to make the old API still work, so, I dunno what that will
> look like until we finish the rest of the design).
>
> If we did a requested-fields approach, what would the user_notif event
> block of bytes look like? Would it be entirely dynamic based on the
> initial ioctl()? Another design consideration here is that we don't want
> the kernel doing tons of work (especially copying) and tossing tons
> of stuff into a huge structure that the user doesn't care about. In
> addition to explicit fields, maybe the EA struct could be included,
> perhaps with specified offset/size, so only the portion the user_notif
> user wanted to inspect was copied?
>
> The complexity of the per-field API is higher, but I think it might be
> the most robust and have the greatest chance at being performant.
> For example, "send me user_notif but I only care about the pid" would
> mean no syscall arguments are copied, etc.
>
>
> ## syscall bitmasks
>
> Background: the number one bit of feedback on seccomp has been performance
> concerns, especially for fast syscalls like futex(). When looking at
> where time is spent, it is very clearly spent running the filters (which
> I found surprising, given that adding TIF_SECCOMP tended to trip the
> "slow path" syscall path (though most architectures these days just
> don't have a fast path any more thanks to Meltdown). It would be nice
> to make filtering faster without running BPF at all. :)
>
> Nearly every thread on adding eBPF, for example, has been about trying to
> speed up the if/then nature of BPF for finding a syscall that the filter
> wants to always accept (or reject). The bulk of most seccomp filters
> are pretty simple, usually they're either "reject everything except
> $set-of-syscalls", or "accept everything except $set-of-syscalls". The
> stuff in between tends to be a mix, like "accept $some, process $these
> with argument checks, and reject $remaining".
>
> In all three cases, the entire seccomp() path could be sped up by having
> a syscall bitmask that could be applied before the filters are ever run,
> with 3 (actually 2) syscall bitmasks: accept, reject, or process. If
> a syscall was in the "accept" bitmask, we immediately exit seccomp and
> continue. Otherwise, if it's in the "reject" bitmask, we mark it rejected
> and immediately exit seccomp. And finally, we run the filters. In all
> ways, doing bitmask math is going to be faster than running the BPF. ;)
>
> So how would the API for this work? I have two thoughts, and I don't
> think they're exclusive:
>
> - new API for "add this syscall to the reject bitmask". We can't really
> do an "accept" bitmask addition without processing the attached
> filters...
> - process attached filters! Each time a filter is added, have the
> BPF verifier do an analysis to determine if there are any static
> results, and set bits in the various bitmasks to represent it.
> i.e. when seccomp is first enabled on a thread, the "accept"
> bitmask is populated with all syscalls, and for each filter, do
> [math,simulation,magic] and knock each syscall out of "accept" if
This sounds like a recipe for bugs :)
> it isn't always accepted, and further see if there are any syscalls
> that are always rejected, and mark those in the "reject" bitmask.
What if instead you have a reject bitmask which is always fine to add
to, and an accept bitmask which is only valid if there are no actual
filters attached. Is that enough for people?
Tycho
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
