Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 27 Feb 2012 10:09:38 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 07/12] seccomp: add SECCOMP_RET_ERRNO | From | Kees Cook <> |
| |
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.
-Kees
-- Kees Cook ChromeOS Security -- 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/
| |