On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 10:13 AM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 9:53 AM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On May 12, 2021, at 10:26 PM, YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 5:36 PM Alexei Starovoitov > > > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> Typically the verifier does all the checks at load time to avoid > > >> run-time overhead during program execution. Then at attach time we > > >> check that attach parameters provided at load time match exactly > > >> to those at attach time. ifindex, attach_btf_id, etc fall into this category. > > >> Doing something similar it should be possible to avoid > > >> doing get_dumpable() at run-time. > > > > > > Do you mean to move the check of dumpable to load time instead of > > > runtime? I do not think that makes sense. A process may arbitrarily > > > set its dumpable attribute during execution via prctl. A process could > > > do set itself to non-dumpable, before interacting with sensitive > > > information that would better not be possible to be dumped (eg. > > > ssh-agent does this [1]). Therefore, being dumpable at one point in > > > time does not indicate anything about whether it stays dumpable at a > > > later point in time. Besides, seccomp filters are inherited across > > > clone and exec, attaching to many tasks with no option to detach. What > > > should the load-time check of task dump-ability be against? The > > > current task may only be the tip of an iceburg. > > > > > > [1] https://github.com/openssh/openssh-portable/blob/2dc328023f60212cd29504fc05d849133ae47355/ssh-agent.c#L1398 > > > > > > > > > > First things first: why are you checking dumpable at all? Once you figure out why and whether it’s needed, you may learn something about what task to check. > > > > I don’t think checking dumpable makes any sense. > > ptrace. We don't want to extend one's ability to read another > process's memory if they could not read it via ptrace > (process_vm_readv or ptrace(PTRACE_PEEK{TEXT,DATA})). The constraints > for ptrace to access a target's memory I've written down earlier [1], > but tl;dr: to be at least as restrictive as ptrace, a tracer without > CAP_PTRACE cannot trace a non-dumpable process. What's the target > process (i.e. the process whose memory is being read) in the context > of a seccomp filter? The current task. Does that answer your > questions? > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CABqSeAT8iz-VhWjWqABqGbF7ydkoT7LmzJ5Do8K1ANQvQK=FJQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ The whole seccomp model is based on the assumption that the filter installer completely controls the filtered task. Reading memory is not qualitatively different. To be clear, this is not to be interpreted as an ack to allowing seccomp to read process memory. I'm saying that, if seccomp gains the ability to read process memory, I don't think a dumpable or ptrace check is needed.
