[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140625135121.GB7892@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 15:51:22 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.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@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/9] seccomp: split mode set routines
On 06/24, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> +static inline void seccomp_assign_mode(struct task_struct *task,
> + unsigned long seccomp_mode)
> +{
> + BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&task->sighand->siglock));
> +
> + task->seccomp.mode = seccomp_mode;
> + set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_SECCOMP);
> +}
OK, but unless task == current this can race with secure_computing().
I think this needs smp_mb__before_atomic() and secure_computing() needs
rmb() after test_bit(TIF_SECCOMP).
Otherwise, can't __secure_computing() hit BUG() if it sees the old
mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ?
Or seccomp_run_filters() can see ->filters == NULL and WARN(),
smp_load_acquire() only serializes that LOAD with the subsequent memory
operations.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists