lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sun, 24 May 2020 17:58:34 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        christian.brauner@...ntu.com, keescook@...omium.org,
        cyphar@...har.com, Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
        jannh@...gle.com, rsesek@...gle.com, palmer@...gle.com,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user
 notifier

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 05:57:32PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 04:39:39PM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > +static void seccomp_handle_addfd(struct seccomp_kaddfd *addfd)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Remove the notification, and reset the list pointers, indicating
> > +	 * that it has been handled.
> > +	 */
> > +	list_del_init(&addfd->list);
> > +
> > +	ret = security_file_receive(addfd->file);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	if (addfd->fd >= 0) {
> > +		ret = replace_fd(addfd->fd, addfd->file, addfd->flags);
> > +		if (ret >= 0)
> > +			fput(addfd->file);
> > +	} else {
> > +		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(addfd->flags);
> > +		if (ret >= 0)
> > +			fd_install(ret, addfd->file);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +out:
> > +	addfd->ret = ret;
> > +	complete(&addfd->completion);
> > +}
> 
> My previous comment about SCM_RIGHTS still applies, right? That is, we
> should do,
> 
> 		sock = sock_from_file(fp[i], &err);
> 		if (sock) {
> 				sock_update_netprioidx(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> 				sock_update_classid(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
> 		}
> 
> and perhaps lift that into a helper.

Oh, and now I see the later patch. But is there a reason to separate
these? I can't think of one.

Tycho

Powered by blists - more mailing lists