lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] samples, selftests/seccomp: Zero out seccomp_notif
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 07:10:29PM -0500, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:48:39AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > The seccomp_notif structure should be zeroed out prior to calling the
> > > SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV ioctl. Previously, the kernel did not check
> > > whether these structures were zeroed out or not, so these worked.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
> > > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > > samples/seccomp/user-trap.c | 2 +-
> > > tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > > index 6d0125ca8af7..0ca8fb37cd79 100644
> > > --- a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > > +++ b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > > @@ -298,7 +298,6 @@ int main(void)
> > > req = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif);
> > > if (!req)
> > > goto out_close;
> > > - memset(req, 0, sizeof(*req));
> > >
> > > resp = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif_resp);
> > > if (!resp)
> > > @@ -306,6 +305,7 @@ int main(void)
> > > memset(resp, 0, sizeof(*resp));
> >
> > I know it's unrelated, but it's probably worth sending a patch to fix
> > this to be sizes.seccomp_notif_resp instead of sizeof(*resp), since if
> > the kernel is older this will over-zero things. I can do that, or you
> > can add the patch to this series, just let me know which.
>
> I was thinking about this, and initially, I chose to make the smaller
> change. I think it might make more sense to combine the patch,
> given that the memset behaviour is "incorrect" if we do it based on
> sizeof(*req), or sizeof(*resp).
>
> I'll go ahead and respin this patch with the change to call memset
> based on sizes.

I think it would be good to keep it as a separate patch, since it's an
unrelated bug fix. That way if we have to revert these because of some
breakage, we won't lose the fix.

Cheers,

Tycho

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-29 01:19    [W:0.034 / U:7.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site