Repository navigation
Change seccomp blacklist to a whitelist - #18979
Conversation
e4d6adf to
9356732
Compare
|
I was wondering why we weren't using a whitelist instead. The whitelist makes more sense to me for one main reason: default action is secure (http://stackoverflow.com/a/504424/486035). 👍 |
|
does this mean you will compile seccomp into your binary now 0:) |
|
SGTM |
|
Using a white list sounds like a better approach to me, so +1 Tentatively moving this to code review |
|
I am slightly inclined to add back in the comments from the blacklisted syscalls as documentation of the ones not in the whitelist, not sure what anyone thinks. |
|
Ok I have tested this extensively: tested that individual syscalls are being correctly filtered, used it as my default docker install and built stuff (eg docker/docker, Linux kernel compile), double checked the syscall list for 32 bits, arm, powerpc. So LGTM. For reference easiest way to check individual syscalls being filtered is: |
|
Thanks I can add those as integration tests :) and I'm working on all new docs with the old comments as well On Dec 30, 2015, 06:59 -0800, Justin Cormacknotifications@github.com, wrote:
|
|
opened additional tests here: #19002 and docs will come soon in another PR |
|
Looks like you have |
9356732 to
f473b64
Compare
|
Good catch thanks On Dec 30, 2015, 18:30 -0800, Brian Goffnotifications@github.com, wrote:
|
f71602e to
dcb0619
Compare
|
LGTM |
dcb0619 to
7632772
Compare
Signed-off-by: Jessica Frazelle <acidburn@docker.com>
Signed-off-by: Jessica Frazelle <acidburn@docker.com>
…ndle_at Being able to obtain a file handle is no use as we cannot perform any operation in it, and it may leak kernel state. Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
sysfs and ustat syscalls are marked obsolete. Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
This is the newer verion of lseek on many 32 bit platforms Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
7632772 to
9236091
Compare
This is used on some 32 bit architectures, eg x86 Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
|
Looking good after more testing. |
|
sorry, wrong button 😄 |
|
That file looks quite long but whatever. LGTM |
|
we could use go generate? I was thinking about that in the beginning On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, David Calavera notifications@github.com
|
|
Unfortunately Linux has too many syscalls, and it matches the libcontainer spec format, well the Go is a bit more readable. It is not ideal, but not sure there is much that can be done. |
|
no i want it to be good :( On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 9:23 AM, David Calavera notifications@github.com
|
In the default seccomp rule, allow use of 32 bit syscalls on 64 bit architectures, so you can run x86 Linux images on x86_64 without disabling seccomp or using a custom rule. Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
This version is sometimes used eg by glibc on x86 Signed-off-by: Justin Cormack <justin.cormack@unikernel.com>
|
FWIW it will be easier to see the diff once its merged ;) |
|
will merging make all red Janky's go green? 😇 |
|
i think it was becausse llvm repo was screwed up |
|
green \o/ |
Change seccomp blacklist to a whitelist
Running various tests on official images, but opening the discussion. ping @justincormack