Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(959)

Unified Diff: sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc

Issue 10536048: Instead of outputting one BPF check per possible system call. Coalesce (Closed) Base URL: svn://svn.chromium.org/chrome/trunk/src
Patch Set: Rebased Created 8 years, 6 months ago
Use n/p to move between diff chunks; N/P to move between comments. Draft comments are only viewable by you.
Jump to:
View side-by-side diff with in-line comments
Download patch
« no previous file with comments | « sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.h ('k') | sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/verifier.cc » ('j') | no next file with comments »
Expand Comments ('e') | Collapse Comments ('c') | Show Comments Hide Comments ('s')
Index: sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
diff --git a/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc b/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
index ad87950c1f902a8eaeaeb05157dcbe0c674dbd96..e37772dd200d999e87b2056e239c8e1c891027d9 100644
--- a/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
+++ b/sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.cc
@@ -213,8 +213,59 @@ bool Sandbox::isSingleThreaded(int proc_fd) {
return true;
}
+static bool isDenied(Sandbox::ErrorCode code) {
+ return code == Sandbox::SB_TRAP ||
+ (code >= (Sandbox::ErrorCode)1 &&
+ code <= (Sandbox::ErrorCode)4095); // errno value
+}
+
+void Sandbox::policySanityChecks(EvaluateSyscall syscallEvaluator,
+ EvaluateArguments) {
+ // Do some sanity checks on the policy. This will warn users if they do
+ // things that are likely unsafe and unintended.
+ // We also have similar checks later, when we actually compile the BPF
+ // program. That catches problems with incorrectly stacked evaluators.
+ if (!isDenied(syscallEvaluator(-1))) {
+ die("Negative system calls should always be disallowed by policy");
+ }
+#ifndef NDEBUG
+#if defined(__i386__) || defined(__x86_64__)
+#if defined(__x86_64__) && defined(__ILP32__)
+ for (unsigned int sysnum = MIN_SYSCALL & ~0x40000000u;
+ sysnum <= (MAX_SYSCALL & ~0x40000000u);
+ ++sysnum) {
+ if (!isDenied(syscallEvaluator(sysnum))) {
+ die("In x32 mode, you should not allow any non-x32 system calls");
+ }
+ }
+#else
+ for (unsigned int sysnum = MIN_SYSCALL | 0x40000000u;
+ sysnum <= (MAX_SYSCALL | 0x40000000u);
+ ++sysnum) {
+ if (!isDenied(syscallEvaluator(sysnum))) {
+ die("x32 system calls should be explicitly disallowed");
+ }
+ }
+#endif
+#endif
+#endif
+ // Check interesting boundary values just outside of the valid system call
+ // range: 0x7FFFFFFF, 0x80000000, 0xFFFFFFFF, MIN_SYSCALL-1, MAX_SYSCALL+1.
+ // They all should be denied.
+ if (!isDenied(syscallEvaluator(std::numeric_limits<int>::max())) ||
+ !isDenied(syscallEvaluator(std::numeric_limits<int>::min())) ||
+ !isDenied(syscallEvaluator(-1)) ||
+ !isDenied(syscallEvaluator(static_cast<int>(MIN_SYSCALL) - 1)) ||
+ !isDenied(syscallEvaluator(static_cast<int>(MAX_SYSCALL) + 1))) {
+ die("Even for default-allow policies, you must never allow system calls "
+ "outside of the standard system call range");
+ }
+ return;
+}
+
void Sandbox::setSandboxPolicy(EvaluateSyscall syscallEvaluator,
EvaluateArguments argumentEvaluator) {
+ policySanityChecks(syscallEvaluator, argumentEvaluator);
evaluators_.push_back(std::make_pair(syscallEvaluator, argumentEvaluator));
}
@@ -288,56 +339,18 @@ void Sandbox::installFilter() {
BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL));
#endif
- // Evaluate all possible system calls and depending on their
- // exit codes generate a BPF filter.
- // This is very inefficient right now. We need to be much smarter
- // eventually.
- // We currently incur a O(N) overhead on each system call, with N
- // being the number of system calls. It is easy to get this down to
- // O(log_2(M)) with M being the number of system calls that need special
- // treatment.
- EvaluateSyscall evaluateSyscall = evaluators_.begin()->first;
- for (uint32_t sysnum = MIN_SYSCALL; sysnum <= MAX_SYSCALL+1; ++sysnum) {
- ErrorCode err = evaluateSyscall(sysnum);
- int ret;
- switch (err) {
- case SB_INSPECT_ARG_1...SB_INSPECT_ARG_6:
- die("Not implemented");
- case SB_TRAP:
- ret = SECCOMP_RET_TRAP;
- break;
- case SB_ALLOWED:
- ret = SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW;
- break;
- default:
- if (err >= static_cast<ErrorCode>(1) &&
- err <= static_cast<ErrorCode>(4096)) {
- // We limit errno values to a reasonable range. In fact, the Linux ABI
- // doesn't support errno values outside of this range.
- ret = SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO + err;
- } else {
- die("Invalid ErrorCode reported by sandbox system call evaluator");
- }
- break;
- }
- if (sysnum <= MAX_SYSCALL) {
- // We compute the default behavior (e.g. fail open or fail closed) by
- // calling the system call evaluator with a system call bigger than
- // MAX_SYSCALL.
- // In other words, the very last iteration in our loop becomes the
- // fallback case and we don't need to do any comparisons.
- program->push_back((struct sock_filter)
- BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP+BPF_JEQ+BPF_K, sysnum, 0, 1));
- }
- program->push_back((struct sock_filter)
- BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, ret));
- }
+ // Evaluate all possible system calls and group their ErrorCodes into
+ // ranges of identical codes.
+ Ranges ranges;
+ findRanges(&ranges);
+
+ // Compile the system call ranges to an optimized BPF program.
+ rangesToBPF(program, ranges);
// Everything that isn't allowed is forbidden. Eventually, we would
// like to have a way to log forbidden calls, when in debug mode.
- // TODO: raise a suitable SIGSYS signal
program->push_back((struct sock_filter)
- BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_KILL));
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO + SECCOMP_DENY_ERRNO));
// Make sure compilation resulted in BPF program that executes
// correctly. Otherwise, there is an internal error in our BPF compiler.
@@ -377,6 +390,100 @@ void Sandbox::installFilter() {
return;
}
+void Sandbox::findRanges(Ranges *ranges) {
+ // Please note that "struct seccomp_data" defines system calls as a signed
+ // int32_t, but BPF instructions always operate on unsigned quantities. We
+ // deal with this disparity by enumerating from MIN_SYSCALL to MAX_SYSCALL,
+ // and then verifying that the rest of the number range (both positive and
+ // negative) all return the same ErrorCode.
+ EvaluateSyscall evaluateSyscall = evaluators_.begin()->first;
+ uint32_t oldSysnum = 0;
+ ErrorCode oldErr = evaluateSyscall(oldSysnum);
+ for (uint32_t sysnum = std::max(1u, MIN_SYSCALL);
+ sysnum <= MAX_SYSCALL + 1;
+ ++sysnum) {
+ ErrorCode err = evaluateSyscall(static_cast<int>(sysnum));
+ if (err != oldErr) {
+ ranges->push_back(Range(oldSysnum, sysnum-1, oldErr));
+ oldSysnum = sysnum;
+ oldErr = err;
+ }
+ }
+
+ // As we looped all the way past the valid system calls (i.e. MAX_SYSCALL+1),
+ // "oldErr" should at this point be the "default" policy for all system call
+ // numbers that don't have an explicit handler in the system call evaluator.
+ // But as we are quite paranoid, we perform some more sanity checks to verify
+ // that there actually is a consistent "default" policy in the first place.
+ // We don't actually iterate over all possible 2^32 values, though. We just
+ // perform spot checks at the boundaries.
+ // The cases that we test are: 0x7FFFFFFF, 0x80000000, 0xFFFFFFFF.
+ if (oldErr != evaluateSyscall(std::numeric_limits<int>::max()) ||
+ oldErr != evaluateSyscall(std::numeric_limits<int>::min()) ||
+ oldErr != evaluateSyscall(-1)) {
+ die("Invalid seccomp policy");
+ }
+ ranges->push_back(
+ Range(oldSysnum, std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max(), oldErr));
+}
+
+void Sandbox::rangesToBPF(Program *program, const Ranges& ranges) {
+ // TODO: We currently search linearly through all ranges. An improved
+ // algorithm should be doing a binary search.
+
+ // System call ranges must cover the entire number range.
+ if (ranges.empty() ||
+ ranges.begin()->from != 0 ||
+ ranges.back().to != std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max()) {
+ rangeError:
+ die("Invalid set of system call ranges");
+ }
+ uint32_t from = 0;
+ for (Ranges::const_iterator iter = ranges.begin();
+ iter != ranges.end();
+ ++iter) {
+ // Ranges must be contiguous and monotonically increasing.
+ if (iter->from > iter->to ||
+ iter->from != from) {
+ goto rangeError;
+ }
+ from = iter->to + 1;
+
+ // Convert ErrorCodes to return values that are acceptable for
+ // BPF filters.
+ int ret;
+ switch (iter->err) {
+ case SB_INSPECT_ARG_1...SB_INSPECT_ARG_6:
+ die("Not implemented");
+ case SB_TRAP:
+ ret = SECCOMP_RET_TRAP;
+ break;
+ case SB_ALLOWED:
+ ret = SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW;
+ break;
+ default:
+ if (iter->err >= static_cast<ErrorCode>(1) &&
+ iter->err <= static_cast<ErrorCode>(4096)) {
+ // We limit errno values to a reasonable range. In fact, the Linux ABI
+ // doesn't support errno values outside of this range.
+ ret = SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO + iter->err;
+ } else {
+ die("Invalid ErrorCode reported by sandbox system call evaluator");
+ }
+ break;
+ }
+
+ // Emit BPF instructions matching this range.
+ if (iter->to != std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max()) {
+ program->push_back((struct sock_filter)
+ BPF_JUMP(BPF_JMP+BPF_JGT+BPF_K, iter->to, 1, 0));
+ }
+ program->push_back((struct sock_filter)
+ BPF_STMT(BPF_RET+BPF_K, ret));
+ }
+ return;
+}
+
void Sandbox::sigSys(int nr, siginfo_t *info, void *void_context) {
if (nr != SIGSYS || info->si_code != SYS_SECCOMP || !void_context) {
// die() can call LOG(FATAL). This is not normally async-signal safe
« no previous file with comments | « sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/sandbox_bpf.h ('k') | sandbox/linux/seccomp-bpf/verifier.cc » ('j') | no next file with comments »

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698