[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005290102.3BB21C875@keescook>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 01:06:59 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] seccomp: notify user trap about unused filter
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:56:41AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:11:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > void seccomp_filter_release(const struct task_struct *tsk)
> > {
> > struct seccomp_filter *orig = READ_ONCE(tsk->seccomp.filter);
> >
> > smp_store_release(&tsk->seccomp.filter, NULL);
>
> I need to go through the memory ordering requirements before I can say
> yay or nay confidently to this. :)
>
> > __seccomp_filter_release(orig);
> > }
The only caller will be release_task() after dethread, so honestly this
was just me being paranoid. I don't think it actually needs the
READ_ONCE() nor the store_release. I think I wrote all that before I'd
convinced myself it was safe to remove a filter then. But I'm still
suspicious given the various ways release_task() gets called... I just
know that if mode 2 is set and filter == NULL, seccomp will fail closed,
so I went the paranoid route. :)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists