linux-hardening - Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 11 Feb 2022 19:57:02 +0100
From:   Robert Święcki <robert@...ecki.net>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] signal: HANDLER_EXIT should clear SIGNAL_UNKILLABLE

pt., 11 lut 2022 o 18:47 Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> napisał(a):

> > I think it'd be good to have some way of doing it from the perspective
> > of a parent process - it'd simplify development of sandboxing managers
> > (eg nsjail, minijail, firejail), and creation of good seccomp
> > policies.
>
> By development do you mean debugging sandbox managers?  Or do you mean
> something that sandbox managers can use on a routine basis?

On a routine basis for 2 purposes

a). development of seccomp policies - the manager (regular parent of
sandboxed process) can tell which syscall (and arguments) failed and
it can be then added to policy (though, 'strace -f -c' might be a
better option here)
b). in case of actual seccomp SIGSYS kill, it could then inform users
about what exactly and where happened (syscall no, cpu arch,
arguments, maybe also eip + stack ptr)

But, I don't want to derail the current bug fixing effort, so I just
wanted to mention all of this quickly, and maybe we can follow up on
this in the future.