Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC] seccomp: don't kill process for resource control syscalls

[Mathias Fröhlich]

Hi,

Thanks for not just killing processes anymore!
See the mesa thread
https://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg214474.html
for some background.

Thanks a lot and best

Mathias

On Wednesday, 13 March 2019 10:49:03 CET Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> The Mesa library tries to set process affinity on some of its threads in
> order to optimize its performance. Currently this results in QEMU being
> immediately terminated when seccomp is enabled.
> 
> Mesa doesn't consider failure of the process affinity settings to be
> fatal to its operation, but our seccomp policy gives it no choice in
> gracefully handling this denial.
> 
> It is reasonable to consider that malicious code using the resource
> control syscalls to be a less serious attack than if they were trying
> to spawn processes or change UIDs and other such things. Generally
> speaking changing the resource control setting will "merely" affect
> quality of service of processes on the host. With this in mind, rather
> than kill the process, we can relax the policy for these syscalls to
> return the EPERM errno value. This allows callers to detect that QEMU
> does not want them to change resource allocations, and apply some
> reasonable fallback logic.
> 
> The main downside to this is for code which uses these syscalls but does
> not check the return value, blindly assuming they will always
> succeeed. Returning an errno could result in sub-optimal behaviour.
> Arguably though such code is already broken & needs fixing regardless.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <address@hidden>
> ---
>  qemu-seccomp.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/qemu-seccomp.c b/qemu-seccomp.c
> index 36d5829831..9776c9ef40 100644
> --- a/qemu-seccomp.c
> +++ b/qemu-seccomp.c
> @@ -121,20 +121,37 @@ qemu_seccomp(unsigned int operation, unsigned int 
> flags, void *args)
>  #endif
>  }
>  
> -static uint32_t qemu_seccomp_get_kill_action(void)
> +static uint32_t qemu_seccomp_get_kill_action(int set)
>  {
> +    switch (set) {
> +    case QEMU_SECCOMP_SET_DEFAULT:
> +    case QEMU_SECCOMP_SET_OBSOLETE:
> +    case QEMU_SECCOMP_SET_PRIVILEGED:
> +    case QEMU_SECCOMP_SET_SPAWN: {
>  #if defined(SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL) && defined(SCMP_ACT_KILL_PROCESS) && \
>      defined(SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS)
> -    {
> -        uint32_t action = SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
> +        static int kill_process = -1;
> +        if (kill_process == -1) {
> +            uint32_t action = SECCOMP_RET_KILL_PROCESS;
>  
> -        if (qemu_seccomp(SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL, 0, &action) == 0) {
> +            if (qemu_seccomp(SECCOMP_GET_ACTION_AVAIL, 0, &action) == 0) {
> +                kill_process = 1;
> +            }
> +            kill_process = 0;
> +        }
> +        if (kill_process == 1) {
>              return SCMP_ACT_KILL_PROCESS;
>          }
> -    }
>  #endif
> +        return SCMP_ACT_TRAP;
> +    }
> +
> +    case QEMU_SECCOMP_SET_RESOURCECTL:
> +        return SCMP_ACT_ERRNO(EPERM);
>  
> -    return SCMP_ACT_TRAP;
> +    default:
> +        g_assert_not_reached();
> +    }
>  }
>  
>  
> @@ -143,7 +160,6 @@ static int seccomp_start(uint32_t seccomp_opts)
>      int rc = 0;
>      unsigned int i = 0;
>      scmp_filter_ctx ctx;
> -    uint32_t action = qemu_seccomp_get_kill_action();
>  
>      ctx = seccomp_init(SCMP_ACT_ALLOW);
>      if (ctx == NULL) {
> @@ -157,10 +173,12 @@ static int seccomp_start(uint32_t seccomp_opts)
>      }
>  
>      for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(blacklist); i++) {
> +        uint32_t action;
>          if (!(seccomp_opts & blacklist[i].set)) {
>              continue;
>          }
>  
> +        action = qemu_seccomp_get_kill_action(blacklist[i].set);
>          rc = seccomp_rule_add_array(ctx, action, blacklist[i].num,
>                                      blacklist[i].narg, blacklist[i].arg_cmp);
>          if (rc < 0) {
>