Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] seccomp: pass uretprobe system call through seccomp
From: Jiri Olsa <hidden>
Date: 2025-02-08 00:04:01
Also in:
bpf, linux-trace-kernel, lkml
Subsystem:
the rest, uprobes, x86 architecture (32-bit and 64-bit) · Maintainers:
Linus Torvalds, Masami Hiramatsu, Oleg Nesterov, Peter Zijlstra, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, Borislav Petkov, Dave Hansen
On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 04:27:09PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
On Sun, Feb 2, 2025 at 5:29 PM Eyal Birger [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
uretprobe(2) is an performance enhancement system call added to improve uretprobes on x86_64. Confinement environments such as Docker are not aware of this new system call and kill confined processes when uretprobes are attached to them.FYI, you might have similar issues with Syscall User Dispatch (https://docs.kernel.org/admin-guide/syscall-user-dispatch.html) and potentially also with ptrace-based sandboxes, depending on what kinda processes you inject uprobes into. For Syscall User Dispatch, there is already precedent for a bypass based on instruction pointer (see syscall_user_dispatch()).quoted
Since uretprobe is a "kernel implementation detail" system call which is not used by userspace application code directly, pass this system call through seccomp without forcing existing userspace confinement environments to be changed.This makes me feel kinda uncomfortable. The purpose of seccomp() is that you can create a process that is as locked down as you want; you can use it for some light limits on what a process can do (like in Docker), or you can use it to make a process that has access to essentially nothing except read(), write() and exit_group(). Even stuff like restart_syscall() and rt_sigreturn() is not currently excepted from that. I guess your usecase is a little special in that you were already calling from userspace into the kernel with SWBP before, which is also not subject to seccomp; and the syscall is essentially an arch-specific hack to make the SWBP a little faster. If we do this, we should at least ensure that there is absolutely no way for anything to happen in sys_uretprobe when no uretprobes are configured for the process - the first check in the syscall implementation almost does that, but the implementation could be a bit stricter. It checks for "regs->ip != trampoline_check_ip()", but if no uprobe region exists for the process, trampoline_check_ip() returns `-1 + (uretprobe_syscall_check - uretprobe_trampoline_entry)`. So there is a userspace instruction pointer near the bottom of the address space that is allowed to call into the syscall if uretprobes are not set up. Though the mmap minimum address restrictions will typically prevent creating mappings there, and uprobe_handle_trampoline() will SIGILL us if we get that far without a valid uretprobe.
nice catch, I think change below should fix that thanks, jirka ---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
index 0c74a4d4df65..9b8837d8f06e 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/uprobes.c@@ -368,19 +368,21 @@ void *arch_uretprobe_trampoline(unsigned long *psize) return &insn; } -static unsigned long trampoline_check_ip(void) +static unsigned long trampoline_check_ip(unsigned long tramp) { - unsigned long tramp = uprobe_get_trampoline_vaddr(); - return tramp + (uretprobe_syscall_check - uretprobe_trampoline_entry); } SYSCALL_DEFINE0(uretprobe) { struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current); - unsigned long err, ip, sp, r11_cx_ax[3]; + unsigned long err, ip, sp, r11_cx_ax[3], tramp; + + tramp = uprobe_get_trampoline_vaddr(); + if (tramp == -1) + goto sigill; - if (regs->ip != trampoline_check_ip()) + if (regs->ip != trampoline_check_ip(tramp)) goto sigill; err = copy_from_user(r11_cx_ax, (void __user *)regs->sp, sizeof(r11_cx_ax));