[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200127050627.GA21575@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 05:06:28 +0000
From: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
To: Aleksa Sarai <asarai@...e.de>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>, 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 Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 03:14:39PM +1100, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
> 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:
> >
I'm all for this, originally my patch read:
__u32 flags = 0;
swap(unotif.flags, flags);
if (memchr(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif))
return -EINVAL;
--- And then check flags appropriately. I'm not sure if this is "better",
as I didn't see any other implementations that look like this in the
kernel. What do you think? It could even look "simpler", as in:
__u32 flags;
if (copy_from_user(....))
return -EFAULT;
flags = unotif.flags;
unotif.flags = 0;
if (memchr_inv(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif)))
return -EINVAL;
Are either of those preferential, reasonable, or at a minimum inoffensive?
> > if (memchr_inv(&unotif, 0, sizeof(unotif)))
> > return -EINVAL;
>
Wouldn't this fail if flags was set to any value? We either need to zero
out flags prior to checking, or split it into range checks that exclude
flags.
> 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/>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists