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, 1 Dec 2020 08:13:34 -0500
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Cc:     Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_ADDFD race condition
Message-ID: <20201201131334.GC103125@cisco>
References: <CADZs7q4sw71iNHmV8EOOXhUKJMORPzF7thraxZYddTZsxta-KQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201130232009.GC38675@cisco>
 <20201201124105.GB103125@cisco>
 <20201201130824.GA27822@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20201201130824.GA27822@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 01:08:25PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 07:41:05AM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 06:20:09PM -0500, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > Idea 1 sounds best to me, but maybe that's because it's the way I
> > > originally did the fd support that never landed :)
> > > 
> > > But here's an Idea 4: we add a way to remotely close an fd (I don't
> > > see that the current infra can do this, but perhaps I didn't look hard
> > > enough), and then when you get ENOENT you have to close the fd. Of
> > > course, this can't be via seccomp, so maybe it's even more racy.
> > 
> > Or better yet: what if the kernel closed everything it had added via
> > ADDFD if it didn't get a valid response from the supervisor? Then
> > everyone gets this bug fixed for free.
> > 
> > Tycho
> > _______________________________________________
> > Containers mailing list
> > Containers@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
> 
> This doesn't solve?the problem universally because of the (Go) preemption 
> problem. Unless we can guarantee that the supervisor can always handle the 
> request in fewer than 10ms, or if it implements resumption behaviour. I know 
> that resumption behaviour is a requirement no matter what, but the easier we can 
> make it to implement resumption, the better chance we are giving users to get 
> this right.

Doesn't automatic cleanup of fds make things easier? I'm not sure I
understand the argument.

I agree it doesn't fix the problem of uncooperative userspace.

Tycho