lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 seccomp 5/5] seccomp/cache: Report cache data through /proc/pid/seccomp_cache
On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 12:00:46AM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 5:20 PM YiFei Zhu <zhuyifei1999@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> [...]
> > +int proc_pid_seccomp_cache(struct seq_file *m, struct pid_namespace *ns,
> > + struct pid *pid, struct task_struct *task)
> > +{
> > + struct seccomp_filter *f;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We don't want some sandboxed process know what their seccomp
> > + * filters consist of.
> > + */
> > + if (!file_ns_capable(m->file, &init_user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> > + return -EACCES;
> > +
> > + f = READ_ONCE(task->seccomp.filter);
> > + if (!f)
> > + return 0;
>
> Hmm, this won't work, because the task could be exiting, and seccomp
> filters are detached in release_task() (using
> seccomp_filter_release()). And at the moment, seccomp_filter_release()
> just locklessly NULLs out the tsk->seccomp.filter pointer and drops
> the reference.

Oh nice catch. Yeah, this would only happen if it was the only filter
remaining on a process with no children, etc.

>
> The locking here is kind of gross, but basically I think you can
> change this code to use lock_task_sighand() / unlock_task_sighand()
> (see the other examples in fs/proc/base.c), and bail out if
> lock_task_sighand() returns NULL. And in seccomp_filter_release(), add
> something like this:
>
> /* We are effectively holding the siglock by not having any sighand. */
> WARN_ON(tsk->sighand != NULL);

Yeah, good idea.

--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-01 01:15    [W:0.116 / U:0.912 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site