Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:14:34 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |