[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202005300908.303040EF9@keescook>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2020 09:09:29 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@...har.com>,
Jeffrey Vander Stoep <jeffv@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Palmer <palmer@...gle.com>,
Robert Sesek <rsesek@...gle.com>,
Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.ws>,
Matt Denton <mpdenton@...gle.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user
notifier
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 03:58:27PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 05:17:24AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> > On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 4:43 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > I mean, yes, that's certainly better, but it just seems a shame that
> > > everyone has to do the get_unused/put_unused dance just because of how
> > > SCM_RIGHTS does this weird put_user() in the middle.
> > >
> > > Can anyone clarify the expected failure mode from SCM_RIGHTS? Can we
> > > move the put_user() after instead?
> >
> > Honestly, I think trying to remove file descriptors and such after
> > -EFAULT is a waste of time. If userspace runs into -EFAULT, userspace
> [...]
>
> There's really no point in trying to save a broken scm message imho.
Right -- my concern is about stuffing a fd into a process without it
knowing (this is likely an overly paranoid concern, given that if the
process is getting EFAULT at the end of a list of fds, all the prior
ones will be installed too..)
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists