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:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 08:52:11 -0700
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
To:     "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
        Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/4] seccomp: add a return code to trap to userspace
Message-ID: <20181203155211.GB3504@cisco>
References: <20181203032827.27978-1-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <20181203032827.27978-4-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <20181203052650.GC31406@mail.hallyn.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20181203052650.GC31406@mail.hallyn.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 11:26:50PM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 08:28:26PM -0700, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > +struct seccomp_knotif {
> > +	/* The struct pid of the task whose filter triggered the notification */
> > +	struct task_struct *task;
> > +
> > +	/* The "cookie" for this request; this is unique for this filter. */
> > +	u64 id;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The seccomp data. This pointer is valid the entire time this
> > +	 * notification is active, since it comes from __seccomp_filter which
> 
> define 'active' - is a notification in state REPLIED still active?

Yes,

> Actually while looking at that, I came to wondering - when are knotifs
> freed?  Seems like only during seccomp_notify_release(), i.e. when the
> tracing task stops polling for events?  Is that going to be a problem?
> Or am I misreading this?

they're stack allocated in do_user_notification(). So "active" in this
sense really means "somewhere in do_user_notification()".

> > +	if (ret == 0 && copy_to_user(buf, &unotif, sizeof(unotif))) {
> > +		ret = -EFAULT;
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Userspace screwed up. To make sure that we keep this
> > +		 * notification alive, let's reset it back to INIT. It
> 
> Is keeping the notification alive the right thing to do?
> 
> If userspace has messed up in something this touchy, it seems unlikely
> that it'll to better if we give it a do-over...  I'm not sure whether
> killing the whole thing (victim and tracer) is the right thing or not.

I suppose we could do that too. I just didn't want to get into a
situation where the notification is lost and the task is stuck because
userspace screwed up here.

Tycho