Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without filtering

[Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 11:16:31AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> [ Watching this with popcorn from the sidelines, but I'll chime in anyway ]
> 
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:38:48 +0100
> Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm still trying to come up with some other solution but wanted
> > to exhaust all the options I could think of
> 
> I think this may have been mentioned, but is there a way that the kernel
> could know that this system call is being monitored by seccomp, and if so,
> just stick with the interrupt version? If not, enable the system call?

yes [1], the problem with that solution is that we install uretprobe
trampoline at function's uprobe entry probe, so we won't catch case
where seccomp is enabled in this probed function, like:

  foo
    uprobe -> install uretprobe trampoline
    ...
    seccomp(SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT..
    ...
    ret -> execute uretprobe trampoline with sys_uretprobe


I thought we could perhaps switch existing uretprobe trampoline to
int3 when we are in sys_seccomp, but another user thread might be
already executing the existing uretprobe trampoline, so I don't
think we can do that 

jirka


[1] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20250114123257.GD19816@redhat.com/