From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To: Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@kinvolk.io>
Cc: "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@kernel.org>,
"Sargun Dhillon" <sargun@sargun.me>,
"Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linux Containers" <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
"Christian Brauner" <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
"Mauricio Vásquez Bernal" <mauricio@kinvolk.io>,
"Giuseppe Scrivano" <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
"Will Drewry" <wad@chromium.org>,
"Alban Crequy" <alban@kinvolk.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/5] seccomp: Add wait_killable semantic to seccomp user notifier
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 08:08:17 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210428140817.GA1965193@cisco> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACaBj2aSnzQnbZG0sMM2Vae_yWGzxKWrGUz9xJVL_7akF8DvNA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 03:20:02PM +0200, Rodrigo Campos wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:10 PM Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@kinvolk.io> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 2:22 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 04:19:54PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > User notifiers should allow correct emulation. Right now, it doesn't,
> > > > but there is no reason it can't.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explanation.
> > >
> > > Consider fsmount, which has a,
> > >
> > > ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&fc->uapi_mutex);
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > goto err_fsfd;
> > >
> > > If a regular task is interrupted during that wait, it return -EINTR
> > > or whatever back to userspace.
> > >
> > > Suppose that we intercept fsmount. The supervisor decides the mount is
> > > OK, does the fsmount, injects the mount fd into the container, and
> > > then the tracee receives a signal. At this point, the mount fd is
> > > visible inside the container. The supervisor gets a notification about
> > > the signal and revokes the mount fd, but there was some time where it
> > > was exposed in the container, whereas with the interrupt in the native
> > > syscall there was never any exposure.
> >
> > IIUC, this is solved by my patch, patch 4 of the series. The
> > supervisor should do the addfd with the flag added in that patch
> > (SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_SEND) for an atomic "addfd + send".
>
> Well, under Andy's proposal handling that is even simpler. If the
> signal is delivered after we added the fd (note that the container
> syscall does not return when the signal arrives, as it happens today,
> it just signals the notifier and continues to wait), we can just
> ignore the signal and return that (if that is the appropriate thing
> for that syscall, but I guess after adding an fd there isn't any other
> reasonable thing to do).
Yes, agreed. After thinking about this more, my example is bogus: the
kernel doesn't sleep after it installs the fd, so it would ignore any
signals too.
Even if the kernel *did* sleep after installing the fd, it would still
be correct emulation to install it and then do whatever the kernel did
during that sleep. So I withdraw my objection :)
Thanks,
Tycho
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-28 14:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-26 18:06 [PATCH RESEND 0/5] Handle seccomp notification preemption Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 18:06 ` [PATCH RESEND 1/5] seccomp: Refactor notification handler to prepare for new semantics Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 18:06 ` [PATCH RESEND 2/5] seccomp: Add wait_killable semantic to seccomp user notifier Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 19:02 ` Tycho Andersen
2021-04-26 22:15 ` Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-27 13:48 ` Tycho Andersen
2021-04-27 16:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-04-27 17:07 ` Tycho Andersen
2021-04-27 22:10 ` Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-27 23:19 ` Andy Lutomirski
2021-04-28 0:22 ` Tycho Andersen
2021-04-28 11:10 ` Rodrigo Campos
2021-04-28 13:20 ` Rodrigo Campos
2021-04-28 14:08 ` Tycho Andersen [this message]
2021-04-28 17:13 ` Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-28 3:20 ` Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-27 16:34 ` Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 18:06 ` [PATCH RESEND 3/5] selftests/seccomp: Add test for wait killable notifier Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 18:51 ` Tycho Andersen
2021-04-26 18:06 ` [PATCH RESEND 4/5] seccomp: Support atomic "addfd + send reply" Sargun Dhillon
2021-04-26 18:06 ` [PATCH RESEND 5/5] selftests/seccomp: Add test for atomic addfd+send Sargun Dhillon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210428140817.GA1965193@cisco \
--to=tycho@tycho.pizza \
--cc=alban@kinvolk.io \
--cc=christian.brauner@ubuntu.com \
--cc=containers@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gscrivan@redhat.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mauricio@kinvolk.io \
--cc=rodrigo@kinvolk.io \
--cc=sargun@sargun.me \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).