[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+CxPPj2m+mgAR99O9PmDF0Pg4vKEXqN6SOdawQ7X_q8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:45:23 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.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>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Julien Tinnes <jln@...omium.org>,
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 2/9] seccomp: split filter prep from check and apply
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 5:37 AM, David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 02:58:06PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>> In preparation for adding seccomp locking, move filter creation away
>> from where it is checked and applied. This will allow for locking where
>> no memory allocation is happening. The validation, filter attachment,
>> and seccomp mode setting can all happen under the future locks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>> ---
>> kernel/seccomp.c | 97 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> index afb916c7e890..edc8c79ed16d 100644
>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>> @@ -515,6 +551,7 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode(unsigned long seccomp_mode, char __user *filter)
>> current->seccomp.mode = seccomp_mode;
>> set_thread_flag(TIF_SECCOMP);
>> out:
>> + seccomp_filter_free(prepared);
>> return ret;
>> }
>
> I think this needs to be inside #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER to match
> the definition of seccomp_filter_free:
>
> ../kernel/seccomp.c:554:2: error: implicit declaration of function ‘seccomp_filter_free’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
Thanks for catching that! I've ended up rearranging the patch series
so the prepare/attach split happens after I've split the set_mode
functions now, so I've managed to avoid this condition now. :)
-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