[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005300834.6419E818A7@keescook>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 09:07:16 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>, christian.brauner@...ntu.com,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cyphar@...har.com,
jannh@...gle.com, jeffv@...gle.com, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, palmer@...gle.com, rsesek@...gle.com,
tycho@...ho.ws, Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user
notifier
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 03:08:37PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 07:43:10PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> > Can anyone clarify the expected failure mode from SCM_RIGHTS? Can we
> > move the put_user() after instead? I think cleanup would just be:
> > replace_fd(fd, NULL, 0)
>
> Bollocks.
>
> Repeat after me: descriptor tables can be shared. There is no
> "cleanup" after you've put something there.
Right -- this is what I was trying to ask about, and why I didn't like
the idea of just leaving the fd in the table on failure. But yeah, there
is a race if the process is about to fork or something.
So the choice here is how to handle the put_user() failure:
- add the put_user() address to the new helper, as I suggest in [1].
(exactly duplicates current behavior)
- just leave the fd in place (not current behavior: dumps a fd into
the process without "agreed" notification).
- do a double put_user (once before and once after), also in [1].
(sort of a best-effort combo of the above two. and SCM_RIGHTS is
hardly fast-pth).
-Kees
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-api/202005282345.573B917@keescook/
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists