[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250117013927.GB2610@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:28 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Eyal Birger <eyal.birger@...il.com>
Cc: kees@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
mhiramat@...nel.org, andrii@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
alexei.starovoitov@...il.com, olsajiri@...il.com, cyphar@...har.com,
songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com, john.fastabend@...il.com,
peterz@...radead.org, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de,
daniel@...earbox.net, ast@...nel.org, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, rafi@....io, shmulik.ladkani@...il.com,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: passthrough uretprobe systemcall without
filtering
On 01/16, Eyal Birger wrote:
>
> Fixes: ff474a78cef5 ("uprobe: Add uretprobe syscall to speed up return probe")
> Reported-by: Rafael Buchbinder <rafi@....io>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHsH6Gs3Eh8DFU0wq58c_LF8A4_+o6z456J7BidmcVY2AqOnHQ@mail.gmail.com/
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
...
> @@ -1359,6 +1359,11 @@ int __secure_computing(const struct seccomp_data *sd)
> this_syscall = sd ? sd->nr :
> syscall_get_nr(current, current_pt_regs());
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + if (unlikely(this_syscall == __NR_uretprobe) && !in_ia32_syscall())
> + return 0;
> +#endif
Acked-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
A note for the seccomp maintainers...
I don't know what do you think, but I agree in advance that the very fact this
patch adds "#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64" into __secure_computing() doesn't look nice.
The problem is that we need a simple patch for -stable which fixes the real
problem. We can cleanup this logic later, I think.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists