Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Add group_leader pid to seccomp_notif

Christian Brauner
2020-05-18T12:05:50Z

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 02:30:57PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 09:02:15AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 08:46:03AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 04:33:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > > > struct seccomp_notif2 {
> > > > __u32 notif_size;
> > > > __u64 id;
> > > > __u32 pid;
> > > > __u32 flags;
> > > > struct seccomp_data data;
> > > > __u32 data_size;
> > > > };
> > >
> > > I guess you need to put data_size before data, otherwise old userspace
> > > with a smaller struct seccomp_data will look in the wrong place.
> > >
> > > But yes, that'll work if you put two sizes in, which is probably
> > > reasonable since we're talking about two structs.
> >
> > Well, no, it doesn't either. Suppose we add a new field first to
> > struct seccomp_notif2:
> >
> > struct seccomp_notif2 {
> > __u32 notif_size;
> > __u64 id;
> > __u32 pid;
> > __u32 flags;
> > struct seccomp_data data;
> > __u32 data_size;
> > __u32 new_field;
> > };
> >
> > And next we add a new field to struct secccomp_data. When a userspace
> > compiled with just the new seccomp_notif2 field does:
> >
> > seccomp_notif2.new_field = ...;
> >
> > the compiler will put it in the wrong place for the kernel with the
> > new seccomp_data field too.
> >
> > Sort of feels like we should do:
> >
> > struct seccomp_notif2 {
> > struct seccomp_notif *notif;
> > struct seccomp_data *data;
> > };
>
> I'm going read this thread more carefully tomorrow, but I just wanted to
> mention that I'd *like* to extend seccomp_data for doing deep argument
> inspection of the new syscalls. I think it's the least bad of many
> designs, and I'll write that up in more detail. (I would *really* like
> to avoid extending seccomp's BPF language, and instead allow probing
> into the struct copied from userspace, etc.)

It's great to hear that you're on this. I haven't had time to work on
this since our kernel summit session. :/
And so far, I really like what I hear. I had the same general thought
that not extending seccomp's bpf is what we want. And to stress this
again before the mails come flooding in: we really need this in seccomp
itself not in any current or future LSM. :)

>
> Anyway, it's very related to this, so, yeah, probably we need a v2 of the
> notif API, but I'll try to get all the ideas here collected in one place.

Cool, I was kinda worried that people would think that's a crazy idea
but I really think we're better off with a redesign. And I think that's
totally ok and cleaner than hacking around it.

Christian