seccomp: enosys: always return -ENOSYS for setup(2) #3474
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AkihiroSuda
reviewed
May 20, 2022
AkihiroSuda
reviewed
May 20, 2022
cyphar
added
the
backport/1.1-todo
AkihiroSuda
previously approved these changes
May 23, 2022
|
Sorry @AkihiroSuda I added a changelog entry, can you re-approve this? |
On s390x, syscalls above 255 are multiplexed using the (now otherwise
unused) setup(2) syscall (syscall number 0). If the kernel supports the
syscall then it will correctly translate the syscall number such that
seccomp will correctly detect it -- however, for unknown syscalls the
syscall number remains unchanged. This can be verified by running the
following program under strace:
int main(void)
{
scmp_filter_ctx ctx = seccomp_init(SCMP_ACT_TRAP);
seccomp_load(ctx);
return syscall(439, AT_FDCWD, "asdf", X_OK, 0);
}
Which will then die with the following signal (on pre-5.8 kernels):
--- SIGSYS {si_signo=SIGSYS, si_code=SYS_SECCOMP,
si_call_addr=0x3ffb3006c22, si_syscall=__NR_setup,
si_arch=AUDIT_ARCH_S390X} ---
(Note that the si_syscall is __NR_setup, not __NR_faccessat2.)
As a result, the -ENOSYS handling we had previously did not work
completely correctly on s390x because any syscall not supported by the
kernel would be treated as syscall number 0 rather than the actual
syscall number.
Always returning -ENOSYS will not cause any issues because in all of the
cases where this multiplexing occurs, seccomp will see the remapped
syscall number -- and no userspace program will call setup(2)
intentionally (the syscall has not existed in Linux for decades and was
originally a hack used early in Linux init prior to spawning pid1 -- so
you will get -ENOSYS from the kernel anyway).
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
Define sizeof(int) as a constant, and also return ENOSYS earlier in the filter if it doesn't increase the number of instructions we generate (this is a negligible performance improvement but it does make it easier to understand the generated filter stub). Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <[email protected]>
AkihiroSuda
approved these changes
May 23, 2022
kolyshkin
added
area/seccomp
backport/1.1-done
Merged
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
On s390x, syscalls above 255 are multiplexed using the (now otherwise
unused) setup(2) syscall (syscall number 0). If the kernel supports the
syscall then it will correctly translate the syscall number such that
seccomp will correctly detect it -- however, for unknown syscalls the
syscall number remains unchanged. This can be verified by running the
following program under strace:
Which will then die with the following signal (on pre-5.8 kernels):
(Note that the si_syscall is __NR_setup, not __NR_faccessat2.)
As a result, the -ENOSYS handling we had previously did not work
completely correctly on s390x because any syscall not supported by the
kernel would be treated as syscall number 0 rather than the actual
syscall number.
Always returning -ENOSYS will not cause any issues because in all of the
cases where this multiplexing occurs, seccomp will see the remapped
syscall number -- and no userspace program will call setup(2)
intentionally (the syscall has not existed in Linux for decades and was
originally a hack used early in Linux init prior to spawning pid1 -- so
you will get -ENOSYS from the kernel anyway).
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai [email protected]