linux-kernel - [PATCH 5.10 052/252] seccomp: Refactor notification handler to prepare for new semantics

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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-Id: <20210531130659.748784740@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 31 May 2021 15:11:57 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@...volk.io>
Subject: [PATCH 5.10 052/252] seccomp: Refactor notification handler to prepare for new semantics

From: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>

commit ddc473916955f7710d1eb17c1273d91c8622a9fe upstream.

This refactors the user notification code to have a do / while loop around
the completion condition. This has a small change in semantic, in that
previously we ignored addfd calls upon wakeup if the notification had been
responded to, but instead with the new change we check for an outstanding
addfd calls prior to returning to userspace.

Rodrigo Campos also identified a bug that can result in addfd causing
an early return, when the supervisor didn't actually handle the
syscall [1].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210413160151.3301-1-rodrigo@kinvolk.io/

Fixes: 7cf97b125455 ("seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user notifier")
Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>
Acked-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Tested-by: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@...volk.io>
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210517193908.3113-3-sargun@sargun.me
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 kernel/seccomp.c |   30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -864,28 +864,30 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(
 
 	up(&match->notif->request);
 	wake_up_poll(&match->wqh, EPOLLIN | EPOLLRDNORM);
-	mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
 
 	/*
 	 * This is where we wait for a reply from userspace.
 	 */
-wait:
-	err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
-	mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
-	if (err == 0) {
-		/* Check if we were woken up by a addfd message */
+	do {
+		mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
+		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
+		mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
+		if (err != 0)
+			goto interrupted;
+
 		addfd = list_first_entry_or_null(&n.addfd,
 						 struct seccomp_kaddfd, list);
-		if (addfd && n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
+		/* Check if we were woken up by a addfd message */
+		if (addfd)
 			seccomp_handle_addfd(addfd);
-			mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
-			goto wait;
-		}
-		ret = n.val;
-		err = n.error;
-		flags = n.flags;
-	}
 
+	}  while (n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED);
+
+	ret = n.val;
+	err = n.error;
+	flags = n.flags;
+
+interrupted:
 	/* If there were any pending addfd calls, clear them out */
 	list_for_each_entry_safe(addfd, tmp, &n.addfd, list) {
 		/* The process went away before we got a chance to handle it */