[libseccomp-discuss] ARM audit, seccomp, etc are broken wrt OABI syscalls
eparis at redhat.com
Wed Nov 6 10:32:31 EST 2013
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 14:36 -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> [cc: some ARM people]
> After a bit of an adventure, I got QEMU working. (Linux 3.12's smc91x
> driver and qemu 1.6 don't get along. It would be great if some
> kernel.org page described a standard way to boot a modern Linux image
> on a modern QEMU version, but I digress.)
> The current state of affairs is unhealthy. I wrote a program
> (attached) that does 'svc $0x90002f' (silly GNU syntax for "Issue the
> getgid syscall in OABI"). The registers I program are:
> r0: 1
> r1: 2
> r2: 3
> r3: 4
> r4: 5
> r5: 6
> (i.e. the arguments are 1,2,3,4,5,6, although getgid ignores them)
> r7: 1
> (r7 is the EABI syscall register. On a kernel without OABI support,
> the immediate svc argument is ignored and syscall 1, i.e. _exit, will
> be invoked).
> Seccomp sees the registers as I set them (unsurprisingly) and it sees
> nr == 0x2f. It passes those values on to a SIGSYS handler, if one
> exists. This is, IMO, bad. The OABI and EABI argument passing
> conventions are *not* the same, and seccomp filters that check syscall
> argument values may be spoofable by using OABI calls.
> I suspect that audit, perf, ftrace, and maybe even ptrace are broken
> as well for exactly the same reason.
> I would argue that there are two reasonable fixes:
> 1. Set a different audit arch for OABI syscalls (e.g.
> AUDIT_ARCH_ARMOABI). That is, treat OABI syscall entries the same way
> that x86_64 treats int 80.
As the audit maintainer, I like #1. It might break ABI, but the ABI is
flat wrong now and not maintainable...
> 2. Leave the 0x900000 bits set in the syscall nr. That way OABI
> syscalls would look like a different set of syscalls on the same
> architecture. That is, treat OABI syscall entries kind of like x86_64
> treats x32 syscalls. (There's probably no reason to accept 0x900000 +
> N as an r7 value to cause 'svc 0' to invoke OABI syscall N, though.)
> 3. Unconditionally kill any process that makes an OABI syscall with
> seccomp enabled (because there should be no such programs). Eww.
> Options 1 and 2 are both break ABI, but I doubt that anythink cares.
> OABI is, AFAICT, mostly dead. That being said, even if nothing
> legitimate uses OABI, exploits against seccomp-using programs can
> certainly use OABI, so I think that this needs to be fixed somehow.
> Thoughts? I think I prefer option 1. I don't really want to make the
> change because my ARM assembly skills are lacking.
> November Webinars for C, C++, Fortran Developers
> Accelerate application performance with scalable programming models. Explore
> techniques for threading, error checking, porting, and tuning. Get the most
> from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register
> libseccomp-discuss mailing list
> libseccomp-discuss at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the linux-arm-kernel