linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Cc: "Kees Cook" <keescook@chromium.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Containers" <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	"Rodrigo Campos" <rodrigo@kinvolk.io>,
	"Christian Brauner" <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
	"Mauricio Vásquez Bernal" <mauricio@kinvolk.io>,
	"Giuseppe Scrivano" <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
	"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
	"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: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 07:48:53 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210427134853.GA1746081@cisco> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210426221527.GA30835@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:15:28PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:02:29PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > @@ -1103,11 +1111,31 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
> > >  	 * This is where we wait for a reply from userspace.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	do {
> > > +		interruptible = notification_interruptible(&n);
> > > +
> > >  		mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> > > -		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> > > +		if (interruptible)
> > > +			err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> > > +		else
> > > +			err = wait_for_completion_killable(&n.ready);
> > >  		mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
> > > -		if (err != 0)
> > > +
> > > +		if (err != 0) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * There is a race condition here where if the
> > > +			 * notification was received with the
> > > +			 * SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE flag, but a
> > > +			 * non-fatal signal was received before we could
> > > +			 * transition we could erroneously end our wait early.
> > > +			 *
> > > +			 * The next wait for completion will ensure the signal
> > > +			 * was not fatal.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			if (interruptible && !notification_interruptible(&n))
> > > +				continue;
> > 
> > I'm trying to understand how one would hit this race,
> > 
> 
> I'm thinking:
> P: Process that "generates" notification
> S: Supervisor
> U: User
> 
> P: Generated notification
> S: ioctl(RECV...) // With wait_killable flag.
> ...complete is called in the supervisor, but the P may not be woken up...
> U: kill -SIGTERM $P
> ...signal gets delivered to p and causes wakeup and
> wait_for_completion_interruptible returns 1...
> 
> Then you need to check the race

I see, thanks. This seems like a consequence of having the flag be
per-RECV-call vs. per-filter. Seems like it might be simpler to have
it be per-filter?

Tycho

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-27 13:50 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 [this message]
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
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=20210427134853.GA1746081@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@amacapital.net \
    --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).