Re: [Question] About SECCOMP issue for ILP32
From: Xiongfeng Wang <hidden>
Date: 2021-12-16 12:03:53
Also in:
linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-doc, lkml
Hi Yury, On 2020/9/1 19:40, Xiongfeng Wang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On 2020/9/1 2:15, Yury Norov wrote:quoted
On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:48 AM Xiongfeng Wang [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Yury,Hi Xiongfeng, [restore CC list] Haven't seen this before. What kernel / glibc / ltp do you use?The kernel version is 4.19. I applied the ILP32 patches from https://github.com/norov/linux.git. The glibc version is 2.28 and I applyed the ILP32 patches. The ltp testsuite is from https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp. I build it with '-mabi=ilp32'.quoted
quoted
We were testing the ILP32 feature and came accross a problem. Very apperaciate it if you could give us some help ! We compile the LTP testsuite with '-mabi=ilp32' and run it on a machine with kernel and glibc applied with ILP32 patches. But we failed on one testcase, prctl04. It print the following error info. 'prctl04.c:199: FAIL: SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT doesn't permit read(2) write(2) and _exit(2)' The testcase is like below, syscall 'prctl' followed by a syscall 'write'. prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, SECCOMP_MODE_STRICT); SAFE_WRITE(1, fd, "a", 1); When we execute syscall 'write', we receive a SIGKILL. It's not as expected. We track the kernel and found out it is because we failed the syscall_whitelist check in '__secure_computing_strict'. Because flag 'TIF_32BIT_AARCH64' is set, we falls into the 'in_compat_syscall()' branch. We compare the parameter 'this_syscall' with return value of 'get_compat_model_syscalls()' The syscall number of '__NR_write' for ilp32 application is 64, but it is 4 for 'model_syscalls_32' returned from 'get_compat_model_syscalls()' So '__secure_computing_strict' retuned with 'do_exit(SIGKILL)'. We have a modification like below, but I am not sure if it correct or not.--- a/kernel/seccomp.c +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c@@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void __secure_computing_strict(int this_syscall) { const int *syscall_whitelist = mode1_syscalls; #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT - if (in_compat_syscall()) + if (is_a32_compat_task()) syscall_whitelist = get_compat_mode1_syscalls();It calls the arch function from generic code. It may break build for other arches. This also looks dangerous because it treats ILP32 execution as non-compat. The right approach would be implementing arch-specific get_compat_mode1_syscalls() in arch/arm64/include/asm/seccomp.h that returns an appropriate table. Refer MIPS code for this: arch/mips/include/asm/seccomp.hThanks for your advice. Thanks a lot. I have written another version according to your advice.--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/seccomp.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/seccomp.h@@ -20,6 +20,36 @@ #define __NR_seccomp_sigreturn_32 __NR_compat_rt_sigreturn #endif /* CONFIG_COMPAT */ +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT +#ifndef __COMPAT_SYSCALL_NR + +static inline const int *get_compat_mode1_syscalls(void) +{ +#ifdef CONFIG_AARCH32_EL0 + static const int mode1_syscalls_a32[] = { + __NR_compat_read, __NR_compat_write, + __NR_compat_read, __NR_compat_sigreturn,
A little fix here. It should be __NR_compat_exit, __NR_compat_sigreturn, Sorry, my fault. Thanks, Xiongfeng
+ 0, /* null terminated */ + }; +#endif + static const int mode1_syscalls_ilp32[] = { + __NR_read, __NR_write, + __NR_exit, __NR_rt_sigreturn, + 0, /* null terminated */ + }; + + if (is_ilp32_compat_task()) + return mode1_syscalls_ilp32; +#ifdef CONFIG_AARCH32_EL0 + return mode1_syscalls_a32; +#endif +} + +#define get_compat_mode1_syscalls get_compat_mode1_syscalls + +#endif +#endif + #include <asm-generic/seccomp.h> #endif /* _ASM_SECCOMP_H */ Thanks, Xiongfengquoted
Thanks, Yuryquoted
#endif do { Thanks, Xiongfeng._______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel .