lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/2] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I understand the value of signaled/SECCOMP_NOTIF_FLAG_SIGNALED...
> > I mean, why it is actually useful?
> >
> > Sorry if this was already discussed.
>
> :) no problem, many people have complained about this. This is an
> implementation of Andy's suggestion here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/15/1122
>
> You can see some more detailed discussion here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/21/138

Cough, sorry, I simply can't understand what are you talking about ;)
It seems that I need to read all the previous emails... So let me ask
a stupid question below.

> > But my main concern is that either way wait_for_completion_killable() allows
> > to trivially create a process which doesn't react to SIGSTOP, not good...
> >
> > Note also that this can happen if, say, both the tracer and tracee run in the
> > same process group and SIGSTOP is sent to their pgid, if the tracer gets the
> > signal first the tracee won't stop.
> >
> > Of freezer. try_to_freeze_tasks() can fail if it freezes the tracer before
> > it does SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND.
>
> I think in general the way this is intended to be used these things
> wouldn't happen.

Why?

> was malicious and had the ability to create a user namespace to
> exhaust pids this way,

Not sure I understand how this connects to my question... nevermind.

> so perhaps we should drop this part of the
> patch. I have no real need for it, but perhaps Andy can elaborate?

Yes I think it would be nice to avoid wait_for_completion_killable().

So please help me to understand the problem. Once again, why can not
seccomp_do_user_notification() use wait_for_completion_interruptible() only?

This is called before the task actually starts the syscall, so
-ERESTARTNOINTR if signal_pending() can't hurt.

Now lets suppose seccomp_do_user_notification() simply does

err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);

if (err < 0 && state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
syscall_set_return_value(ERESTARTNOINTR);
list_del(&n.list);
return -1;
}

(I am ignoring the locking/etc). Now the obvious problem is that the listener
doing SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND can't distinguish -ENOENT from the case when the
tracee was killed, yes?

Is it that important?

Any other problem?

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-01 15:49    [W:0.053 / U:32.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site