Hi Oleg,
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 08:51:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/20, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kees, Oleg,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:20:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > No, you can't do copy_to_user() from atomic context. You need to pin this
> > > filter, drop the lock/irq, then copy_to_user().
> >
> > Attached is a patch which addresses this.
>
> Looks good to me, feel free to add my reviewed-by.
>
>
> a couple of questions, I am just curious...
>
> > +long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
> > + void __user *data)
> > +{
> > + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> > + struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
> > + long ret;
> > + unsigned long count = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
> > + current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
> > + return -EACCES;
> > + }
> > +
> > + spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
> > + if (task->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER) {
> > + ret = -EINVAL;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > + filter = task->seccomp.filter;
> > + while (filter) {
> > + filter = filter->prev;
> > + count++;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (filter_off >= count) {
> > + ret = -ENOENT;
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > + count -= filter_off;
> > +
> > + filter = task->seccomp.filter;
> > + while (filter && count > 1) {
> > + filter = filter->prev;
> > + count--;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (WARN_ON(count != 1)) {
> > + /* The filter tree shouldn't shrink while we're using it. */
> > + ret = -ENOENT;
>
> Yes. but this looks a bit confusing. If we want this WARN_ON() check
> because we are paranoid, then we should do
>
> WARN_ON(count != 1 || filter);
I guess you mean !filter here? We want filter to be non-null, because
we use it later.
> And "while we're using it" look misleading, we rely on ->siglock.
>
> Plus if we could be shrinked the additional check can't help anyway,
> we can used the free filter. So I don't really understand this check
> and "filter != NULL" in the previous "while (filter && count > 1)".
> Nevermind...
Just paranoia. You're right that we could get rid of WARN_ON and the
null check. I can send an updated patch to drop these bits if
necessary. Kees?
> The question is:
>
> > + fprog = filter->prog->orig_prog;
> > + if (!fprog) {
>
> So is it possible or not? I didn't see the previous changes which
> added "bool save" to seccomp_attach_filter() so I simply can't know.
Currently, no, it's not. Every struct seccomp_filter is created via a
classic filter,
> Now,
>
> > + /* This must be a new non-cBPF filter, since we save every
> > + * every cBPF filter's orig_prog above when
> > + * CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE is enabled.
> > + */
> > + ret = -EMEDIUMTYPE;
>
> If this is possible, then probably we should simply change both
> "while (filter)" loops above to skip a filter if orig_prog == NULL
> and remove the -EMEDIUMTYPE code ?
>
> Or what? Probably "a new non-cBPF filter" answers my question,
> but I do not know what this cBPF/non-cBPF actually means ;)
>
> In short. Who can attach a filter without "save => true" ?
There are two kinds of BPF programs, a "classic" instruction set, and
an "extended" one (which has more features, like maps, that seccomp
probably wants to use someday). Right now, the kernel only supports
adding filters via the classic interface, which saves the orig_prog
and then converts it into the "extended" instruction set for internal
use in the kernel. This ptrace command just dumps the classic
programs.
In the future, if there exists a seccomp interface to add extended BPF
programs directly, they won't have an orig_prog, which will trigger
this error. We don't want to skip these filters because userspace has
no way to know that there is a filter there it couldn't dump. Instead,
we give EMEDIUMTYPE, so userspace knows to use whatever dumping
mechanism exists for this new filter type.
Tycho
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
