[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWq12bmire=XwaPCtiJs3-80McaZJzyVt3U5dTHge8LxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 10:11:43 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho.andersen@...onical.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: add ptrace commands for suspend/resume
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 06/03, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 08:28:29PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> > On 06/01, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
>> > > +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>> > > @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@ struct seccomp_filter;
>> > > struct seccomp {
>> > > int mode;
>> > > struct seccomp_filter *filter;
>> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE
>> > > + bool suspended;
>> > > +#endif
>> >
>> > Then afaics you need to change copy_seccomp() to clear ->suspended.
>> > At least if the child is not traced.
>>
>> Yes, thank you.
>
> And if we really need to play with TIF_NOTSC, then copy_seccomp() should
> set it too if SUSPEND has cleared in parent's flags.
>
>> > But why do we bother to play with TIF_NOTSC, could you explain?
>>
>> The procedure for restoring is to call seccomp suspend, restore the
>> seccomp filters (and potentially other stuff), and then resume them at
>> the end. If the other stuff happens to use RDTSC, the process gets
>> killed because TIF_NOTSC has been set.
>
> This is clear, just I thought that CRIU doesn't use rdtsc on behalf of
> the traced task...
>
>> We can work around this in criu by doing the seccomp restore as the
>> very last thing before the final sigreturn,
>
> Not sure I understand... You need to suspend at "dump" time too afaics,
> otherwise, say, syscall_seized() can fail because this syscall is nacked
> by seccomp?
>
>> but that seems like the
>> seccomp suspend API is incomplete, IMO. However, since both you and
>> Andy complained, perhaps I should remove it :)
>
> Well, this is up to you ;)
>
> But. Note that a process can also disable TSC via PR_SET_TSC. So if
> dump or restore can't work without enabling TSC you probably want to
> handle this case too.
>
> And this makes me think that this needs a separate interface. I dunno.
>
True. Or we could keep track of all the reasons the TSC is off.
--Andy
--
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