On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:19 PM, Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net> wrote:
> This fixes two issues that could cause incompatibility between
> kernel versions:
>
> - If a tracer uses SECCOMP_RET_TRACE to select a syscall number
> higher than the largest known syscall, emulate the unknown
> vsyscall by returning -ENOSYS. (This is unlikely to make a
> noticeable difference on x86-64 due to the way the system call
> entry works.)
>
> - On x86-64 with vsyscall=emulate, skipped vsyscalls were buggy.
>
> This updates the documentation accordingly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <l...@amacapital.net>
> Cc: Will Drewry <w...@chromium.org>
> ---
> Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt | 74 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c | 110
> +++++++++++++++++---------------
> kernel/seccomp.c | 13 +++-
> 3 files changed, 137 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt
> b/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt
> index 597c3c5..1e469ef 100644
> --- a/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt
> @@ -95,12 +95,15 @@ SECCOMP_RET_KILL:
>
> SECCOMP_RET_TRAP:
> Results in the kernel sending a SIGSYS signal to the triggering
> - task without executing the system call. The kernel will
> - rollback the register state to just before the system call
> - entry such that a signal handler in the task will be able to
> - inspect the ucontext_t->uc_mcontext registers and emulate
> - system call success or failure upon return from the signal
> - handler.
> + task without executing the system call. siginfo->si_call_addr
> + will show the address of the system call instruction, and
> + siginfo->si_syscall and siginfo->si_arch will indicate which
> + syscall was attempted. The program counter will be as though
> + the syscall happened (i.e. it will not point to the syscall
> + instruction). The return value register will contain an arch-
> + dependent value -- if resuming execution, set it to something
> + sensible. (The architecture dependency is because replacing
> + it with -ENOSYS could overwrite some useful information.)
>
> The SECCOMP_RET_DATA portion of the return value will be passed
> as si_errno.
> @@ -123,6 +126,18 @@ SECCOMP_RET_TRACE:
> the BPF program return value will be available to the tracer
> via PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG.
>
> + The tracer can skip the system call by changing the syscall number
> + to -1. Alternatively, the tracer can change the system call
> + requested by changing the system call to a valid syscall number. If
> + the tracer asks to skip the system call, then the system call will
> + appear to return the value that the tracer puts in the return value
> + register.
> +
> + The seccomp check will not be run again after the tracer is
> + notified. (This means that seccomp-based sandboxes MUST NOT
> + allow use of ptrace, even of other sandboxed processes, without
> + extreme care; ptracers can use this mechanism to escape.)
> +
> SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW:
> Results in the system call being executed.
>
> @@ -161,3 +176,50 @@ architecture supports both ptrace_event and seccomp, it
> will be able to
> support seccomp filter with minor fixup: SIGSYS support and seccomp return
> value checking. Then it must just add CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_SECCOMP_FILTER
> to its arch-specific Kconfig.
> +
> +
> +
> +Caveats
> +-------
> +
> +The vDSO can cause some system calls to run entirely in userspace,
> +leading to surprises when you run programs on different machines that
> +fall back to real syscalls. To minimize these surprises on x86, make
> +sure you test with
> +/sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource set to
> +something like acpi_pm.
> +
> +On x86-64, vsyscall emulation is enabled by default. (vsyscalls are
> +legacy variants on vDSO calls.) Currently, emulated vsyscalls will honor
> seccomp, with a few oddities:
> +
> +- A return value of SECCOMP_RET_TRAP will set a si_call_addr pointing to
> + the vsyscall entry for the given call and not the address after the
> + 'syscall' instruction. Any code which wants to restart the call
> + should be aware that (a) a ret instruction has been emulated and (b)
> + trying to resume the syscall will again trigger the standard vsyscall
> + emulation security checks, making resuming the syscall mostly
> + pointless.
> +
> +- A return value of SECCOMP_RET_TRACE will signal the tracer as usual,
> + but the syscall may not be changed to another system call using the
> + orig_rax register. It may only be changed to -1 order to skip the
> + currently emulated call. Any other change MAY terminate the process.
> + The rip value seen by the tracer will be the syscall entry address;
> + this is different from normal behavior. The tracer MUST NOT modify
> + rip or rsp. (Do not rely on other changes terminating the process.
> + They might work. For example, on some kernels, choosing a syscall
> + that only exists in future kernels will be correctly emulated (by
> + returning -ENOSYS).
> +
> +To detect this quirky behavior, check for addr & ~0x0C00 ==
> +0xFFFFFFFFFF600000. (For SECCOMP_RET_TRACE, use rip. For
> +SECCOMP_RET_TRAP, use siginfo->si_call_addr.) Do not check any other
> +condition: future kernels may improve vsyscall emulation and current
> +kernels in vsyscall=native mode will behave differently, but the
> +instructions at 0xF...F600{0,4,8,C}00 will not be system calls in these
> +cases.
> +
> +Note that modern systems are unlikely to use vsyscalls at all -- they
> +are a legacy feature and they are considerably slower than standard
> +syscalls. New code will use the vDSO, and vDSO-issued system calls
> +are indistinguishable from normal system calls.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c b/arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c
> index 5db36ca..44a3a2e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/vsyscall_64.c
> @@ -139,19 +139,6 @@ static int addr_to_vsyscall_nr(unsigned long addr)
> return nr;
> }
>
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP
> -static int vsyscall_seccomp(struct task_struct *tsk, int syscall_nr)
> -{
> - if (!seccomp_mode(&tsk->seccomp))
> - return 0;
> - task_pt_regs(tsk)->orig_ax = syscall_nr;
> - task_pt_regs(tsk)->ax = syscall_nr;
> - return __secure_computing(syscall_nr);
> -}
> -#else
> -#define vsyscall_seccomp(_tsk, _nr) 0
> -#endif
> -
> static bool write_ok_or_segv(unsigned long ptr, size_t size)
> {
> /*
> @@ -184,10 +171,9 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
> long address)
> {
> struct task_struct *tsk;
> unsigned long caller;
> - int vsyscall_nr;
> + int vsyscall_nr, syscall_nr, tmp;
> int prev_sig_on_uaccess_error;
> long ret;
> - int skip;
>
> /*
> * No point in checking CS -- the only way to get here is a user mode
> @@ -219,56 +205,84 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
> long address)
> }
>
> tsk = current;
> - /*
> - * With a real vsyscall, page faults cause SIGSEGV. We want to
> - * preserve that behavior to make writing exploits harder.
> - */
> - prev_sig_on_uaccess_error =
> current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error;
> - current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error = 1;
>
> /*
> + * Check for access_ok violations and find the syscall nr.
> + *
> * NULL is a valid user pointer (in the access_ok sense) on 32-bit and
> * 64-bit, so we don't need to special-case it here. For all the
> * vsyscalls, NULL means "don't write anything" not "write it at
> * address 0".
> */
> - ret = -EFAULT;
> - skip = 0;
> switch (vsyscall_nr) {
> case 0:
> - skip = vsyscall_seccomp(tsk, __NR_gettimeofday);
> - if (skip)
> - break;
> -
> if (!write_ok_or_segv(regs->di, sizeof(struct timeval)) ||
> - !write_ok_or_segv(regs->si, sizeof(struct timezone)))
> - break;
> + !write_ok_or_segv(regs->si, sizeof(struct timezone))) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto check_fault;
> + }
> +
> + syscall_nr = __NR_gettimeofday;
> + break;
> +
> + case 1:
> + if (!write_ok_or_segv(regs->di, sizeof(time_t))) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto check_fault;
> + }
> +
> + syscall_nr = __NR_time;
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + if (!write_ok_or_segv(regs->di, sizeof(unsigned)) ||
> + !write_ok_or_segv(regs->si, sizeof(unsigned))) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto check_fault;
> + }
> +
> + syscall_nr = __NR_getcpu;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Handle seccomp. regs->ip must be the original value.
> + * See seccomp_send_sigsys and Documentation/prctl/seccomp_filter.txt.
> + *
> + * We could optimize the seccomp disabled case, but performance
> + * here doesn't matter.
> + */
> + regs->orig_ax = syscall_nr;
> + regs->ax = -ENOSYS;
> + tmp = secure_computing(syscall_nr);
> + if ((regs->orig_ax != syscall_nr && !tmp) || regs->ip != address) {
Would it make sense to check tmp first since it is the most common case?
If it is skipping, is there any reason to block ip changes? Of
course, I don't have a test for normal ptrace with IP change at
syscall exit versus this, so I'm fine with it starting more
restrictive.
> + warn_bad_vsyscall(KERN_DEBUG, regs,
> + "seccomp tried to change syscall nr or ip");
> + do_exit(SIGSYS);
> + }
> + if (tmp)
> + goto do_ret; /* skip requested */
>
> + /*
> + * With a real vsyscall, page faults cause SIGSEGV. We want to
> + * preserve that behavior to make writing exploits harder.
> + */
> + prev_sig_on_uaccess_error =
> current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error;
> + current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error = 1;
> +
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + switch (vsyscall_nr) {
> + case 0:
> ret = sys_gettimeofday(
> (struct timeval __user *)regs->di,
> (struct timezone __user *)regs->si);
> break;
>
> case 1:
> - skip = vsyscall_seccomp(tsk, __NR_time);
> - if (skip)
> - break;
> -
> - if (!write_ok_or_segv(regs->di, sizeof(time_t)))
> - break;
> -
> ret = sys_time((time_t __user *)regs->di);
> break;
>
> case 2:
> - skip = vsyscall_seccomp(tsk, __NR_getcpu);
> - if (skip)
> - break;
> -
> - if (!write_ok_or_segv(regs->di, sizeof(unsigned)) ||
> - !write_ok_or_segv(regs->si, sizeof(unsigned)))
> - break;
> -
> ret = sys_getcpu((unsigned __user *)regs->di,
> (unsigned __user *)regs->si,
> NULL);
> @@ -277,12 +291,7 @@ bool emulate_vsyscall(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned
> long address)
>
> current_thread_info()->sig_on_uaccess_error =
> prev_sig_on_uaccess_error;
>
> - if (skip) {
> - if ((long)regs->ax <= 0L) /* seccomp errno emulation */
> - goto do_ret;
> - goto done; /* seccomp trace/trap */
> - }
> -
> +check_fault:
> if (ret == -EFAULT) {
> /* Bad news -- userspace fed a bad pointer to a vsyscall. */
> warn_bad_vsyscall(KERN_INFO, regs,
> @@ -305,7 +314,6 @@ do_ret:
> /* Emulate a ret instruction. */
> regs->ip = caller;
> regs->sp += 8;
> -done:
> return true;
>
> sigsegv:
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index ee376be..5af44b5 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -396,25 +396,29 @@ int __secure_computing(int this_syscall)
> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
> case SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER: {
> int data;
> + struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> ret = seccomp_run_filters(this_syscall);
> data = ret & SECCOMP_RET_DATA;
> ret &= SECCOMP_RET_ACTION;
> switch (ret) {
> case SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO:
> /* Set the low-order 16-bits as a errno. */
> - syscall_set_return_value(current,
> task_pt_regs(current),
> + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs,
> -data, 0);
> goto skip;
> case SECCOMP_RET_TRAP:
> /* Show the handler the original registers. */
> - syscall_rollback(current, task_pt_regs(current));
> + syscall_rollback(current, regs);
> /* Let the filter pass back 16 bits of data. */
> seccomp_send_sigsys(this_syscall, data);
> goto skip;
> case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE:
> /* Skip these calls if there is no tracer. */
> - if (!ptrace_event_enabled(current,
> PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP))
> + if (!ptrace_event_enabled(current,
> PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP)) {
> + syscall_set_return_value(current, regs,
> + -ENOSYS, 0);
Thanks! I've been meaning to post this, but was waiting until I added
a non-x86 arch :)
> goto skip;
> + }
> /* Allow the BPF to provide the event message */
> ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP, data);
> /*
> @@ -425,6 +429,9 @@ int __secure_computing(int this_syscall)
> */
> if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> break;
> + if (syscall_get_nr(current, regs) < 0)
> + goto skip; /* Explicit request to skip. */
> +
> return 0;
> case SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW:
> return 0;
> --
> 1.7.7.6
>
Acked-by: Will Drewry <w...@chromium.org>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
