lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [2]   [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 11/01, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 02:40:02PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Somehow I no longer understand why do you need to take all locks. Isn't
> > the first filter's notify_lock enough? IOW,
> >
> > for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> > if (cur->notif)
> > return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> > first = cur;
> > }
> >
> > if (first)
> > mutex_lock(&first->notify_lock);
> >
> > ... initialize filter->notif ...
> >
> > out:
> > if (first)
> > mutex_unlock(&first->notify_lock);
> >
> > return ret;
>
> The idea here is to prevent people from "nesting" notify filters. So
> if any filter in the chain has a listener attached, it refuses to
> install another filter with a listener.

Yes, I understand, so we need to check cur->notif. My point was, we do not
need to take all the locks in the ->prev chain, we need only one:
first->notify_lock.

But you know what? today I think that we do not need any locking at all,
all we need is the lockless

for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev)
if (cur->notif)
return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);

at the start, nothing more.

> But it just occurred to me that we don't handle the TSYNC case
> correctly by doing it this way,

Why? Perhaps I missed your point, but TSYNC case looks fine. I mean, if 2
threads do seccomp_set_mode_filter(NEW_LISTENER | TSYNC) then only one can
win the race and succeed, but this has nothing to do with init_listener(),
we rely on ->siglock and is_ancestor() check.

No?

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-02 11:03    [W:0.049 / U:1.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site