[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181101134001.GA23232@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 14:40:02 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>,
Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@....ntt.co.jp>,
Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
On 10/29, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> +static struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> +{
> + struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> + struct seccomp_filter *cur, *last_locked = NULL;
> + int filter_nesting = 0;
> +
> + for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> + mutex_lock_nested(&cur->notify_lock, filter_nesting);
> + filter_nesting++;
> + last_locked = cur;
> + if (cur->notif)
> + goto out;
> + }
Somehow I no longer understand why do you need to take all locks. Isn't
the first filter's notify_lock enough? IOW,
for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
if (cur->notif)
return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
first = cur;
}
if (first)
mutex_lock(&first->notify_lock);
... initialize filter->notif ...
out:
if (first)
mutex_unlock(&first->notify_lock);
return ret;
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists