On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:27 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2014 03:22 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:18 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 06/11/2014 02:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 13ns is with the simplest nonempty filter. I hope that empty filters
>>>>>> don't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't they?
>>>>
>>>> Is it permissible to fall off the end of a BPF program? I'm getting
>>>> EINVAL trying to install an actual empty filter. The filter I tested
>>>> with was:
>>>>
>>>
>>> What I meant was that there has to be a well-defined behavior for the
>>> program falling off the end anyway, and that that should be preserved.
>>>
>>> I guess it is possible to require that all code paths must provably
>>> reach a termination point.
>>>
>>
>> Dunno. I haven't ever touched any of the actual BPF code. This whole
>> patchset only changes the code that invokes the BPF evaluator.
>
> Yes, this is how BPF works: runs to the end or exit early. With
> seccomp BPF specifically, the return value defaults to kill the
> process. If a filter was missing (NULL), or empty, or didn't
> explicitly return with a new value, the default (kill) should be
> taken.
Yup - this is just a property of BPF (and a nice one :)
On seccomp_attach_filter this check fires:
if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
return -EINVAL;
As well as in sk_chk_filter:
if (flen == 0 || flen > BPF_MAXINSNS)
return -EINVAL;
And:
/* last instruction must be a RET code */
switch (filter[flen - 1].code) {
case BPF_S_RET_K:
case BPF_S_RET_A:
return check_load_and_stores(filter, flen);
}
cheers!
will
