linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 15 Jan 2014 20:28:16 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nicolas Schichan <nschichan@...ebox.fr>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, holt@....com,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] sys, seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and
	SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC

On 01/15, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> I think the
> locking is seriously broken in this series.

And imho seccomp_sync_threads() should fail "safely".

IOW, I think it should do while_each_thread() twice. The first
iteration should just check SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER/is_ancestor()
and fail if necessary. The 2nd one should change other threads.

Btw, it seems that is_ancestor() doesn't need the NULL check,
it is not called if SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/