lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v11 07/12] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO
    On 02/27, Kees Cook wrote:
    >
    > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
    > > On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
    > >>
    > >>  static u32 seccomp_run_filters(int syscall)
    > >>  {
    > >>       struct seccomp_filter *f;
    > >> -     u32 ret = SECCOMP_RET_KILL;
    > >>       static const struct bpf_load_fn fns = {
    > >>               bpf_load,
    > >>               sizeof(struct seccomp_data),
    > >>       };
    > >> +     u32 ret = SECCOMP_RET_ALLOW;
    > >>       const void *sc_ptr = (const void *)(uintptr_t)syscall;
    > >>
    > >> +     /* Ensure unexpected behavior doesn't result in failing open. */
    > >> +     if (unlikely(current->seccomp.filter == NULL))
    > >> +             ret = SECCOMP_RET_KILL;
    > >
    > > Is "seccomp.filter == NULL" really possible?
    >
    > It should not be, but I'm much more comfortable with this failing
    > closed. I think it's important to be as defensive as possible with
    > this code given its intended use.

    Can't resists... Sorry, I know I am troll but personally I think
    in this case the most defensive code is BUG_ON(->filter == NULL)
    or at least WARN_ON().

    Nevermind, I won't pretend I really understand the intended use,
    please ignore.

    Oleg.

    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-02-27 19:25    [W:2.488 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site