[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <42cf76db-6cda-4606-9128-6f433da57d48@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 14:51:54 -0600
From: Tom Hromatka <tom.hromatka@...cle.com>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_CLONE_FILTER operation
On 9/3/25 2:45 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2025 at 1:38 PM Tom Hromatka <tom.hromatka@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> + spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>> + spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>> +
>> + if (atomic_read(&task->seccomp.filter_count) == 0) {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
>
> did you copy this pattern from somewhere ?
> It's obviously buggy.
I tried to mimic the logic in copy_seccomp() in kernel/fork.c,
but as you point out, I probably messed it up :).
Do you have recommendations for a better design pattern?
Thanks!
Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists