Re: [RFC 1/3] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace

From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
	Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
	Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 09:47:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180205084736.biqc4mflczsix6wm@cisco> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrV81yr_zhuBbCTE8NgYx42oq=qvP=nLMsST0iS2wtOZng@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 08:33:25PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 4, 2018 at 8:01 PM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:36:33PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> > The actual implementation of this is fairly small, although getting the
> >> > synchronization right was/is slightly complex. Also worth noting that there
> >> > is one race still present:
> >> >
> >> >   1. a task does a SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> >> >   2. the userspace handler reads this notification
> >> >   3. the task dies
> >> >   4. a new task with the same pid starts
> >> >   5. this new task does a SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF, gets the same cookie id
> >> >      that the previous one did
> >> >   6. the userspace handler writes a response
> >>
> >> I'm slightly confused.  I thought the id was never reused for a given
> >> struct seccomp_filter.  (Also, shouldn't the id be u64, not u32?)
> >
> > Well, what happens when u32/64 overflows? Eventually it will wrap.
> 
> I think we can safely assume that u64 won't overflow.  Even if we
> processed one user return notification on a given seccomp_filter every
> nanosecond (which would be insanely fast), that's 584 years.

Yes, fair point r.e. u64. I'll make the change.

> >
> >> On very quick reading, I have a question.  What happens if a process
> >> has two seccomp_filters attached, one of them returns
> >> SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF, and the *other* one has a listener?
> >
> > Good question, in seccomp_run_filters(), the first (lowest, last
> > applied) filter who returns SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF is the one that
> > gets the notification and the other receives nothing.
> >
> > I don't really have any reason to prefer this behavior, it's just what
> > happened without much thought.
> 
> Hmm.  This won't nest right.  Maybe we should just disallow a
> user-notification-using filter from being applied if there is already
> one in the stack.  Then, if anyone cares about making these things
> nest right, they can fix it.

Sounds fine to me, I'll add a check.

Cheers,

Tycho