[1.1] seccomp: enosys: always return -ENOSYS for setup(2) on s390(x)#3478
Merged
AkihiroSuda merged 1 commit intoopencontainers:release-1.1from May 25, 2022
cyphar:1.1-seccomp-enosys-setup
Merged
[1.1] seccomp: enosys: always return -ENOSYS for setup(2) on s390(x)#3478AkihiroSuda merged 1 commit intoopencontainers:release-1.1from cyphar:1.1-seccomp-enosys-setup
AkihiroSuda merged 1 commit intoopencontainers:release-1.1from
cyphar:1.1-seccomp-enosys-setup
Conversation
On s390x, syscalls above 255 are multiplexed using the (now otherwise
unused) setup(2) syscall (syscall number 0). If the kernel supports the
syscall then it will correctly translate the syscall number such that
seccomp will correctly detect it -- however, for unknown syscalls the
syscall number remains unchanged. This can be verified by running the
following program under strace:
int main(void)
{
scmp_filter_ctx ctx = seccomp_init(SCMP_ACT_TRAP);
seccomp_load(ctx);
return syscall(439, AT_FDCWD, "asdf", X_OK, 0);
}
Which will then die with the following signal (on pre-5.8 kernels):
--- SIGSYS {si_signo=SIGSYS, si_code=SYS_SECCOMP,
si_call_addr=0x3ffb3006c22, si_syscall=__NR_setup,
si_arch=AUDIT_ARCH_S390X} ---
(Note that the si_syscall is __NR_setup, not __NR_faccessat2.)
As a result, the -ENOSYS handling we had previously did not work
completely correctly on s390x because any syscall not supported by the
kernel would be treated as syscall number 0 rather than the actual
syscall number.
Always returning -ENOSYS will not cause any issues because in all of the
cases where this multiplexing occurs, seccomp will see the remapped
syscall number -- and no userspace program will call setup(2)
intentionally (the syscall has not existed in Linux for decades and was
originally a hack used early in Linux init prior to spawning pid1 -- so
you will get -ENOSYS from the kernel anyway).
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>
AkihiroSuda
approved these changes
May 25, 2022
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
On s390x, syscalls above 255 are multiplexed using the (now otherwise
unused) setup(2) syscall (syscall number 0). If the kernel supports the
syscall then it will correctly translate the syscall number such that
seccomp will correctly detect it -- however, for unknown syscalls the
syscall number remains unchanged. This can be verified by running the
following program under strace:
Which will then die with the following signal (on pre-5.8 kernels):
(Note that the si_syscall is __NR_setup, not __NR_faccessat2.)
As a result, the -ENOSYS handling we had previously did not work
completely correctly on s390x because any syscall not supported by the
kernel would be treated as syscall number 0 rather than the actual
syscall number.
Always returning -ENOSYS will not cause any issues because in all of the
cases where this multiplexing occurs, seccomp will see the remapped
syscall number -- and no userspace program will call setup(2)
intentionally (the syscall has not existed in Linux for decades and was
originally a hack used early in Linux init prior to spawning pid1 -- so
you will get -ENOSYS from the kernel anyway).
Backport of #3474
Signed-off-by: Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com