lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] seccomp: fix the usage of get/put_seccomp_filter() in seccomp_get_filter()
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/20, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 5:56 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > @@ -908,13 +912,13 @@ long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
>> > if (!data)
>> > goto out;
>> >
>> > - get_seccomp_filter(task);
>> > + refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
>> > spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
>> >
>> > if (copy_to_user(data, fprog->filter, bpf_classic_proglen(fprog)))
>> > ret = -EFAULT;
>> >
>> > - put_seccomp_filter(task);
>> > + __put_seccomp_filter(filter);
>> > return ret;
>>
>> Given how reference counting is done for filters, I'd be happier with
>> leaving the get_seccomp_filter() as-is,
>
> No, please note that filter != tsk->seccomp.filter, get_seccomp_filter()
> won't work.

Ah yes, sorry, you're right.

>> (i.e. don't open-code
>> the refcount_inc()).
>
> agreed, probably another __get_seccomp_filter(filter) makes sense, especially
> if we do other changes like get_nth().
>
> But imo not in this fix.

Regardless, whatever lands will need backport adjustment for
refcount_*/atomic_* in -stable.

Can you resend the two patches; I can send the backport to -stable manually...

-Kees

--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-21 21:52    [W:0.071 / U:1.160 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site