Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 30 Oct 2018 11:21:43 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        "Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
        Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
Message-ID: <20181030172143.GD7343@cisco>
References: <20181029224031.29809-1-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <20181029224031.29809-2-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <20181030150254.GB3385@redhat.com>
 <20181030155403.GC7343@cisco>
 <20181030162752.GB7643@redhat.com>
 <20181030163926.GC7643@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181030163926.GC7643@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:39:26PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 10/30, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -828,6 +823,11 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const struct seccomp_data *sd,
> > >  	 */
> > >  	rmb();
> > >
> > > +	if (!sd) {
> > > +		populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local);
> > > +		sd = &sd_local;
> > > +	}
> > > +
> >
> > To me it would be more clean to remove the "if (!sd)" check, case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE)
> > in __seccomp_filter() can simply do populate_seccomp_data(&sd_local) unconditionally
> > and pass &sd_local to __seccomp_filter().
> 
> Ah, please ignore, emulate_vsyscall() does secure_computing(NULL).
> 
> Btw. why __seccomp_filter() doesn't return a boolean?
> 
> Or at least, why can't case(SECCOMP_RET_TRACE) simply do
> 
> 	return __seccomp_filter(this_syscall, NULL, true);
> 
> ?

Yeah, at least the second one definitely makes sense. I can add that
as a patch in the next version of this series unless Kees does it
before.

Thanks for your help, Oleg!

Tycho