[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200126041439.liwfmb4h74zmhi76@yavin.dot.cyphar.com>
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 15:14:39 +1100
From: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
To: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>
Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, christian.brauner@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD to get
pidfd on listener trap
On 2020-01-26, Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com> wrote:
> On 2020-01-24, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me> wrote:
> > static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
> > void __user *buf)
> > {
> > struct seccomp_knotif *knotif = NULL, *cur;
> > struct seccomp_notif unotif;
> > + struct task_struct *group_leader;
> > + bool send_pidfd;
> > ssize_t ret;
> >
> > + if (copy_from_user(&unotif, buf, sizeof(unotif)))
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > /* Verify that we're not given garbage to keep struct extensible. */
> > - ret = check_zeroed_user(buf, sizeof(unotif));
> > - if (ret < 0)
> > - return ret;
> > - if (!ret)
> > + if (unotif.id ||
> > + unotif.pid ||
> > + memchr_inv(&unotif.data, 0, sizeof(unotif.data)) ||
> > + unotif.pidfd)
> > + return -EINVAL;
>
> IMHO this check is more confusing than the original check_zeroed_user().
> Something like the following is simpler and less prone to forgetting to
> add a new field in the future:
>
> if (memchr_inv(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif)))
> return -EINVAL;
Also the check in the patch doesn't ensure that any unnamed padding is
zeroed -- memchr_inv(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif)) does.
--
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists