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;
Cc:     mtk.manpages@gmail.com, "Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@hallyn.com>,
        linux-man@vger.kernel.org, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
        Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Aleksa Sarai <asarai@suse.de>,
        Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@canonical.com>,
        Akihiro Suda <suda.akihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] seccomp.2: document userspace notification
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
References: <20181213001106.15268-1-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <20181213001106.15268-3-tycho@tycho.ws>
 <2cea5fec-e73e-5749-18af-15c35a4bd23c@gmail.com>
 <e7a5abd9-f7b7-e077-221a-4c3ef7b818df@gmail.com>
 <20190301145341.GD7413@cisco>
From:   "Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7a101bfc-b045-35f8-aa3f-a18ecc896fc8@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 1 Mar 2019 16:13:46 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190301145341.GD7413@cisco>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 3/1/19 3:53 PM, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 02:25:55PM +0100, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>>> 7. The monitoring process can use the information in the
>>>    'struct seccomp_notif' to make a determination about the
>>>    system call being made by the target process. This
>>>    structure includes a 'data' field that is the same
>>>    'struct seccomp_data' that is passed to a BPF filter.
>>>
>>>    In addition, the monitoring process may make use of other 
>>>    information that is available from user space. For example, 
>>>    it may inspect the memory of the target process (whose PID
>>>    is provided in the 'struct seccomp_notif') using
>>>    /proc/PID/mem, which includes inspecting the values
>>>    pointed to by system call arguments (whose location is
>>>    available 'seccomp_notif.data.args). However, when using
>>>    the target process PID in this way, one must guard against
>>>    PID re-use race conditions using the seccomp()
>>>    SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ID_VALID operation.
>>>
>>> 8. Having arrived at a decision about the target process's
>>>    system call, the monitoring process can inform the kernel
>>>    of its decision using the operation
>>>
>>>        ioctl(listenfd, SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND, respptr)
>>>
>>>    where the third argument is a pointer to a
>>>    'struct seccomp_notif_resp'. [Some more details
>>>    needed here, but I still don't yet understand fully
>>>    the semantics of the 'error' and 'val' fields.]
>>
>> So clearly, I misunderstood these last two steps.
>>
>> (7) is something like: discover information in userspace
>> as required; perform userspace actions if appropriate
>> (perhaps doing the system call operation "on behalf of" the
>> target process).
>>
>>
>> (8) is something like:
>>    set 'error' and 'val' to return info to the target process:
>>     * error != 0 ==> make it look like the syscall failed,
>>       with 'errno' set to that value

That piece should be amended:
error < 0 ==> make it look like syscall failed.
error > 0 ==> make it look like the syscall succeeded 
       and returned 'error'

Is that really supposed to happen?

>>     * error == 0 ==> make it look like the syscall succeeded 
>>       and returned 'val'

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/