lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [May]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] seccomp: notify user trap about unused filter
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 1:11 AM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:14:11PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> > * @usage: reference count to manage the object lifetime.
> > * get/put helpers should be used when accessing an instance
> > * outside of a lifetime-guarded section. In general, this
> > * is only needed for handling filters shared across tasks.
> > [...]
> > + * @live: Number of tasks that use this filter directly and number
> > + * of dependent filters that have a non-zero @live counter.
> > + * Altered during fork(), exit(), and filter installation
> > [...]
> > refcount_set(&sfilter->usage, 1);
> > + refcount_set(&sfilter->live, 1);
[...]
> After looking at these other lifetime management examples in the kernel,
> I'm convinced that tracking these states separately is correct, but I
> remain uncomfortable about task management needing to explicitly make
> two calls to let go of the filter.
>
> I wonder if release_task() should also detach the filter from the task
> and do a put_seccomp_filter() instead of waiting for task_free(). This
> is supported by the other place where seccomp_filter_release() is
> called:
>
> > @@ -396,6 +400,7 @@ static inline void seccomp_sync_threads(unsigned long flags)
> > * allows a put before the assignment.)
> > */
> > put_seccomp_filter(thread);
> > + seccomp_filter_release(thread);
>
> This would also remove the only put_seccomp_filter() call outside of
> seccomp.c, since the free_task() call will be removed now in favor of
> the task_release() call.
>
> So, is it safe to detach the filter in release_task()? Has dethreading
> happened yet? i.e. can we race TSYNC? -- is there a possible
> inc-from-zero?

release_task -> __exit_signal -> __unhash_process ->
list_del_rcu(&p->thread_node) drops us from the thread list under
siglock, which is the same lock TSYNC uses.

One other interesting thing that can look at seccomp state is
task_seccomp() in procfs - that can still happen at this point. At the
moment, procfs only lets you see the numeric filter state, not the
actual filter contents, so that's not a problem; but if we ever add a
procfs interface for dumping seccomp filters (in addition to the
ptrace interface that already exists), that's something to keep in
mind.

> (Actually, all our refcount_inc()s should be
> refcount_inc_not_zero() just for robustness.)

Eeeh... wouldn't that just make the code more complicated for no good reason?

> I *think* we can do it
> before the release_thread() call (instead of after cgroup_release()).

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-05-29 01:54    [W:0.133 / U:3.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site