Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add a new sysctl knob: unprivileged_userfaultfd_user_mode_only

[Lokesh Gidra]

Daniel, the original contributor of this patchset, has moved to
another company. Adding his personal email, in case he still wants to
be involved.

>From the discussion so far it seems that there is a consensus that
patch 1/2 in this series should be upstreamed in any case. Is there
anything that is pending on that patch?

On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 5:57 AM Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:17 PM Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:17:20PM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > > Adding the Android kernel team in the discussion.
> >
> > Unless I'm mistaken that you can already enforce bit 1 of the second
> > parameter of the userfaultfd syscall to be set with seccomp-bpf, this
> > would be more a question to the Android userland team.
> >
> > The question would be: does it ever happen that a seccomp filter isn't
> > already applied to unprivileged software running without
> > SYS_CAP_PTRACE capability?
>
> Yes.
>
> Android uses selinux as our primary sandboxing mechanism. We do use
> seccomp on a few processes, but we have found that it has a
> surprisingly high performance cost [1] on arm64 devices so turning it
> on system wide is not a good option.
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-security-module/202006011116.3F7109A@keescook/T/#m82ace19539ac595682affabdf652c0ffa5d27dad
> >
> >
> > If answer is "no" the behavior of the new sysctl in patch 2/2 (in
> > subject) should be enforceable with minor changes to the BPF
> > assembly. Otherwise it'd require more changes.
> >
Adding Nick (Jeff is already here) to respond to Andrea's concerns
about adding option '2' to sysctl knob.

> > Thanks!
> > Andrea
> >