lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] samples, selftests/seccomp: Zero out seccomp_notif
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:48:39AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> The seccomp_notif structure should be zeroed out prior to calling the
> SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV ioctl. Previously, the kernel did not check
> whether these structures were zeroed out or not, so these worked.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> ---
> samples/seccomp/user-trap.c | 2 +-
> tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> index 6d0125ca8af7..0ca8fb37cd79 100644
> --- a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> +++ b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> @@ -298,7 +298,6 @@ int main(void)
> req = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif);
> if (!req)
> goto out_close;
> - memset(req, 0, sizeof(*req));
>
> resp = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif_resp);
> if (!resp)
> @@ -306,6 +305,7 @@ int main(void)
> memset(resp, 0, sizeof(*resp));

I know it's unrelated, but it's probably worth sending a patch to fix
this to be sizes.seccomp_notif_resp instead of sizeof(*resp), since if
the kernel is older this will over-zero things. I can do that, or you
can add the patch to this series, just let me know which.

But in any case, this patch is:

Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>

Cheers,

Tycho
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-28 19:19    [W:0.037 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site