On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 07:05:42AM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:24 AM Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 09:27:49AM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the review!
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 5:41 PM Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 06:58:06AM -0800, Eyal Birger wrote:
> > > > > Note: uretprobe isn't supported in i386 and __NR_ia32_rt_tgsigqueueinfo
> > > > > uses the same number as __NR_uretprobe so the syscall isn't forced in the
> > > > > compat bitmap.
> > > >
> > > > So a 64-bit tracer cannot use uretprobe on a 32-bit process? Also is
> > > > uretprobe strictly an x86_64 feature?
> > > >
> > >
> > > My understanding is that they'd be able to do so, but use the int3 trap
> > > instead of the uretprobe syscall.
> > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > > > index 385d48293a5f..23b594a68bc0 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> > > > > @@ -734,13 +734,13 @@ seccomp_prepare_user_filter(const char __user *user_filter)
> > > > >
> > > > > #ifdef SECCOMP_ARCH_NATIVE
> > > > > /**
> > > > > - * seccomp_is_const_allow - check if filter is constant allow with given data
> > > > > + * seccomp_is_filter_const_allow - check if filter is constant allow with given data
> > > > > * @fprog: The BPF programs
> > > > > * @sd: The seccomp data to check against, only syscall number and arch
> > > > > * number are considered constant.
> > > > > */
> > > > > -static bool seccomp_is_const_allow(struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog,
> > > > > - struct seccomp_data *sd)
> > > > > +static bool seccomp_is_filter_const_allow(struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog,
> > > > > + struct seccomp_data *sd)
> > > > > {
> > > > > unsigned int reg_value = 0;
> > > > > unsigned int pc;
> > > > > @@ -812,6 +812,21 @@ static bool seccomp_is_const_allow(struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog,
> > > > > return false;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static bool seccomp_is_const_allow(struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog,
> > > > > + struct seccomp_data *sd)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +#ifdef __NR_uretprobe
> > > > > + if (sd->nr == __NR_uretprobe
> > > > > +#ifdef SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
> > > > > + && sd->arch != SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
> > > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > I don't like this because it's not future-proof enough. __NR_uretprobe
> > > > may collide with other syscalls at some point.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure I got this point.
> > >
> > > > And if __NR_uretprobe_32
> > > > is ever implemented, the seccomp logic will be missing. I think this
> > > > will work now and in the future:
> > > >
> > > > #ifdef __NR_uretprobe
> > > > # ifdef SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT
> > > > if (sd->arch == SECCOMP_ARCH_COMPAT) {
> > > > # ifdef __NR_uretprobe_32
> > > > if (sd->nr == __NR_uretprobe_32)
> > > > return true;
> > > > # endif
> > > > } else
> > > > # endif
> > > > if (sd->nr == __NR_uretprobe)
> > > > return true;
> > > > #endif
> > >
> > > I don't know if implementing uretprobe syscall for compat binaries is
> > > planned or makes sense - I'd appreciate Jiri's and others opinion on that.
> > > That said, I don't mind adding this code for the sake of future proofing.
> >
> > as Andrii wrote in the other email ATM it's just strictly x86_64,
> > but let's future proof it
>
> Thank you. So I'm ok with using the suggestion above, but more on this below.
>
> >
> > AFAIK there was an attempt to do similar on arm but it did not show
> > any speed up
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Instead of doing a function rename dance, I think you can just stick
> > > > the above into seccomp_is_const_allow() after the WARN().
> > >
> > > My motivation for the renaming dance was that you mentioned we might add
> > > new syscalls to this as well, so I wanted to avoid cluttering the existing
> > > function which seems to be well defined.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also please add a KUnit tests to cover this in
> > > > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c
> > >
> > > I think this would mean that this test suite would need to run as
> > > privileged. Is that Ok? or maybe it'd be better to have a new suite?
> > >
> > > > With at least these cases combinations below. Check each of:
> > > >
> > > > - not using uretprobe passes
> > > > - using uretprobe passes (and validates that uretprobe did work)
> > > >
> > > > in each of the following conditions:
> > > >
> > > > - default-allow filter
> > > > - default-block filter
> > > > - filter explicitly blocking __NR_uretprobe and nothing else
> > > > - filter explicitly allowing __NR_uretprobe (and only other
> > > > required syscalls)
> > >
> > > Ok.
> >
> > please let me know if I can help in any way with tests
>
> Thanks! Is there a way to partition this work? I'd appreciate the help
> if we can find some way of doing so.
sure, I'll check the seccomp selftests and let you know
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hm, is uretprobe expected to work on mips? Because if so, you'll need to
> > > > do something similar to the mode1 checking in the !SECCOMP_ARCH_NATIVE
> > > > version of seccomp_cache_check_allow().
> > >
> > > I don't know if uretprobe syscall is expected to run on mips. Personally
> > > I'd avoid adding this dead code.
>
> Jiri, what is your take on this one?
uretprobe syscall is not expected to work on mips, atm it's strictly x86_64
jirka
