On Jan 28, 2016 6:33 PM, "Andy Lutomirski" [off-list ref] wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Kees Cook [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Tracing processes for syscall usage can be done one step at a time with
SECCOMP_RET_TRAP, but this will block the syscall. Alternatively, using
a ptrace manager to handle SECCOMP_RET_TRACE returns can be used but is
heavy weight and depends on the ptrace infrastructure. A light-weight
method to learn syscalls is needed, which can reuse the existing delivery
of SIGSYS but without skipping the syscall. This is implemented as
SECCOMP_RET_ACK which is as permissive as SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW but delivers
SIGSYS after syscall completion, as long as the SECCOMP_RET_DATA is
non-zero. A signal handler can install a new rule for each syscall as
they are signaled with SECCOMP_RET_DATA set to 0 to disable reporting
for that syscall in the future (which is required for restarting syscalls
that are signal-sensitive like nanosleep).
Registers from the signal will reflect registers after the syscall returns
rather than before. Signal-sensitive syscalls will trigger EINTR, so they
must be whitelisted before they are resumed. Not allowing the sigreturn
syscall (and likely prctl to whitelist) will make using SECCOMP_RET_ACK
useless.
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <redacted>
Could this use task_work to queue the signal on return to user mode
instead? Would that solve the EINTR issues?
As another option, use the existing TRAP option but add a way for a
process to set a flag such that it can delete and re-add a filter.
Then you get SIGSYS, delete the old filter, add a new one that allows
the current syscall, and resume. No funny business with EINTR or
clobbered regs.
--Andy