Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:05:29 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@cyphar.com>,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@google.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>,
        Robert Sesek <rsesek@google.com>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, containers@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] seccomp: Switch addfd to Extensible Argument
 ioctl
Message-ID: <202006160904.A30F2C5B9E@keescook>
References: <20200616032524.460144-1-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200616032524.460144-11-keescook@chromium.org>
 <20200616145546.GH2893648@cisco>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200616145546.GH2893648@cisco>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:55:46AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:25:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > This patch is based on discussions[1] with Sargun Dhillon, Christian
> > Brauner, and David Laight. Instead of building size into the addfd
> > structure, make it a function of the ioctl command (which is how sizes are
> > normally passed to ioctls). To support forward and backward compatibility,
> > just mask out the direction and size, and match everything. The size (and
> > any future direction) checks are done along with copy_struct_from_user()
> > logic. Also update the selftests to check size bounds.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200612104629.GA15814@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h                  |  2 -
> >  kernel/seccomp.c                              | 21 ++++++----
> >  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++---
> >  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > index c347160378e5..473a61695ac3 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > @@ -118,7 +118,6 @@ struct seccomp_notif_resp {
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * struct seccomp_notif_addfd
> > - * @size: The size of the seccomp_notif_addfd structure
> >   * @id: The ID of the seccomp notification
> >   * @flags: SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_*
> >   * @srcfd: The local fd number
> > @@ -126,7 +125,6 @@ struct seccomp_notif_resp {
> >   * @newfd_flags: The O_* flags the remote FD should have applied
> >   */
> >  struct seccomp_notif_addfd {
> > -	__u64 size;
> 
> Huh? Won't this break builds?

Only if they use addfd without this patch? :) Are you saying I should
collapse this patch into the main addfd and test patches?

-- 
Kees Cook