[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5jKoDEXffJqFSjhO+D=5toJOA=KAomi+LQOahPDYKFbEdg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 11:05:22 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 7/9] seccomp: implement SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> +static pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
>> +{
>> + struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
>> +
>> + BUG_ON(write_can_lock(&tasklist_lock));
>> + BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(¤t->sighand->siglock));
>> +
>> + if (current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER)
>> + return -EACCES;
>> +
>> + /* Validate all threads being eligible for synchronization. */
>> + thread = caller = current;
>> + for_each_thread(caller, thread) {
>> + pid_t failed;
>> +
>> + if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ||
>> + (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER &&
>> + is_ancestor(thread->seccomp.filter,
>> + caller->seccomp.filter)))
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /* Return the first thread that cannot be synchronized. */
>> + failed = task_pid_vnr(thread);
>> + /* If the pid cannot be resolved, then return -ESRCH */
>> + if (failed == 0)
>> + failed = -ESRCH;
>
> forgot to mention, task_pid_vnr() can't fail. sighand->siglock is held,
> for_each_thread() can't see a thread which has passed unhash_process().
Certainly good to know, but I'd be much more comfortable leaving this
check as-is. Having "failed" return with "0" would be very very bad
(userspace would think the filter had been successfully applied, etc).
I'd rather stay highly defensive here.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists