Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Add argument filters to the seccomp sandbox

[Paul Moore <pmoore@redhat.com>]

On Monday, September 28, 2015 11:14:42 PM Namsun Ch'o wrote:
> > My understanding of the config file you proposed is that it would allow
> > the
> > configuration of a whitelist, so changes to the config very could result
> > in
> > *less* strict of a filter, not always more.
> 
> No. Any time an administrator wants a syscall that is not enabled in the
> sandbox, they either don't actually need it, or it's a bug and should be
> fixed. So all the config would do is add argument filters to syscalls which
> are already whitelisted.

If the syscall, without arguments, is already added to the whitelist then 
adding a new libseccomp rule to allow that same syscall with specific 
arguments will have no effect since a broader rule already exists in the 
filter.

> The alternative would be that the syscalls are given no further argument
> filtering. The config could only make the filteres more restrictive, never
> less.

I still don't see how this is the case, but it probably isn't worth arguing 
any further without some patches.
 
> Perhaps there could be a #define somewhere that toggles whether or not a
> syscall argument filter can be created for a syscall which is not in the
> built-in whitelist, otherwise it would throw an error saying that you cannot
> create an argument filter for a syscall that is not permitted.

I would argue you should never be able to add a syscall to the whitelist via a 
config file and/or command line option, but that is my opinion.

-- 
paul moore
security @ redhat