lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] seccomp: notify user trap about unused filter
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:36:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:52:03PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:43:49PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > (While I'm here -- why can there be only one listener per task? The
> > > notifications are filter-specific, not task-specific?)
> >
> > Not sure what you mean here?
>
> tatic struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> {
> struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> struct seccomp_filter *cur;
>
> for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> if (cur->notif)
> goto out;
> }
>
> ...
>
> /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
> EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
> SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
> -1);
> EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
>
>
> Why does this limit exist? Since the fd is tied to a specific filter,
> I don't see conflicts about having multiple USER_NOTIF filters on one
> task -- the monitor's response will either fake it or continue it, so
> there is no "composition" needed? I must be missing something.

It exists because Andy asked for it :)

I agree that there's no technical reason for it to be there. I think
it's just that the semantics were potentially confusing, and it wasn't
a requirement anyone had to have multiples attached.

Tycho

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-28 00:56    [W:0.062 / U:3.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site