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:   Wed, 17 Jun 2020 13:08:44 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@gmail.com>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Cc:     containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, keescook@chromium.org,
        linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, christian.brauner@ubuntu.com,
        cyphar@cyphar.com, jannh@google.com, jeffv@google.com,
        palmer@google.com, rsesek@google.com, tycho@tycho.ws,
        Matt Denton <mpdenton@google.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] seccomp: Add find_notification helper
Message-ID: <20200617200844.GA12976@Ryzen-9-3900X.localdomain>
References: <20200601112532.150158-1-sargun@sargun.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200601112532.150158-1-sargun@sargun.me>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 04:25:32AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> This adds a helper which can iterate through a seccomp_filter to
> find a notification matching an ID. It removes several replicated
> chunks of code.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
> Acked-by: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
> Cc: Matt Denton <mpdenton@google.com>
> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@google.com>,
> Cc: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
> Cc: Robert Sesek <rsesek@google.com>,
> Cc: Chris Palmer <palmer@google.com>
> Cc: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
> Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>
> ---
>  kernel/seccomp.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
> index 55a6184f5990..cc6b47173a95 100644
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
>  #include <linux/tracehook.h>
>  #include <linux/uaccess.h>
>  #include <linux/anon_inodes.h>
> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
>  
>  enum notify_state {
>  	SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT,
> @@ -1021,10 +1022,27 @@ static int seccomp_notify_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +/* must be called with notif_lock held */
> +static inline struct seccomp_knotif *
> +find_notification(struct seccomp_filter *filter, u64 id)
> +{
> +	struct seccomp_knotif *cur;
> +
> +	lockdep_assert_held(&filter->notify_lock);
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(cur, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
> +		if (cur->id == id)
> +			return cur;
> +	}
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +
>  static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  				void __user *buf)
>  {
> -	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif = NULL, *cur;
> +	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif, *cur;
>  	struct seccomp_notif unotif;
>  	ssize_t ret;
>  
> @@ -1078,15 +1096,8 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  		 * may have died when we released the lock, so we need to make
>  		 * sure it's still around.
>  		 */
> -		knotif = NULL;
>  		mutex_lock(&filter->notify_lock);
> -		list_for_each_entry(cur, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
> -			if (cur->id == unotif.id) {
> -				knotif = cur;
> -				break;
> -			}
> -		}
> -
> +		knotif = find_notification(filter, unotif.id);
>  		if (knotif) {
>  			knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_INIT;
>  			up(&filter->notif->request);
> @@ -1101,7 +1112,7 @@ static long seccomp_notify_send(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  				void __user *buf)
>  {
>  	struct seccomp_notif_resp resp = {};
> -	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif = NULL, *cur;
> +	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif;
>  	long ret;
>  
>  	if (copy_from_user(&resp, buf, sizeof(resp)))
> @@ -1118,13 +1129,7 @@ static long seccomp_notify_send(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	list_for_each_entry(cur, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
> -		if (cur->id == resp.id) {
> -			knotif = cur;
> -			break;
> -		}
> -	}
> -
> +	knotif = find_notification(filter, resp.id);
>  	if (!knotif) {
>  		ret = -ENOENT;
>  		goto out;
> @@ -1150,7 +1155,7 @@ static long seccomp_notify_send(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  static long seccomp_notify_id_valid(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  				    void __user *buf)
>  {
> -	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif = NULL;

I don't know that this should have been removed, clang now warns:

kernel/seccomp.c:1063:2: warning: variable 'knotif' is used uninitialized whenever 'for' loop exits because its condition is false [-Wsometimes-uninitialized]
        list_for_each_entry(cur, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
        ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
include/linux/list.h:602:7: note: expanded from macro 'list_for_each_entry'
             &pos->member != (head);                                    \
             ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
kernel/seccomp.c:1075:7: note: uninitialized use occurs here
        if (!knotif) {
             ^~~~~~
kernel/seccomp.c:1063:2: note: remove the condition if it is always true
        list_for_each_entry(cur, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
        ^
include/linux/list.h:602:7: note: expanded from macro 'list_for_each_entry'
             &pos->member != (head);                                    \
             ^
kernel/seccomp.c:1045:31: note: initialize the variable 'knotif' to silence this warning
        struct seccomp_knotif *knotif, *cur;
                                     ^
                                      = NULL
1 warning generated.

> +	struct seccomp_knotif *knotif;
>  	u64 id;
>  	long ret;
>  
> @@ -1161,16 +1166,12 @@ static long seccomp_notify_id_valid(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  	if (ret < 0)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	ret = -ENOENT;
> -	list_for_each_entry(knotif, &filter->notif->notifications, list) {
> -		if (knotif->id == id) {
> -			if (knotif->state == SECCOMP_NOTIFY_SENT)
> -				ret = 0;
> -			goto out;
> -		}
> -	}
> +	knotif = find_notification(filter, id);
> +	if (knotif && knotif->state == SECCOMP_NOTIFY_SENT)
> +		ret = 0;
> +	else
> +		ret = -ENOENT;
>  
> -out:
>  	mutex_unlock(&filter->notify_lock);
>  	return ret;
>  }
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Cheers,
Nathan