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, 27 Apr 2021 07:48:53 -0600
From:   Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
To:     Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@kinvolk.io>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>,
        Mauricio =?iso-8859-1?Q?V=E1squez?= Bernal 
        <mauricio@kinvolk.io>, Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>, Alban Crequy <alban@kinvolk.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 2/5] seccomp: Add wait_killable semantic to
 seccomp user notifier
Message-ID: <20210427134853.GA1746081@cisco>
References: <20210426180610.2363-1-sargun@sargun.me>
 <20210426180610.2363-3-sargun@sargun.me>
 <20210426190229.GB1605795@cisco>
 <20210426221527.GA30835@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210426221527.GA30835@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:15:28PM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 01:02:29PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > @@ -1103,11 +1111,31 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
> > >  	 * This is where we wait for a reply from userspace.
> > >  	 */
> > >  	do {
> > > +		interruptible = notification_interruptible(&n);
> > > +
> > >  		mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> > > -		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> > > +		if (interruptible)
> > > +			err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> > > +		else
> > > +			err = wait_for_completion_killable(&n.ready);
> > >  		mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
> > > -		if (err != 0)
> > > +
> > > +		if (err != 0) {
> > > +			/*
> > > +			 * There is a race condition here where if the
> > > +			 * notification was received with the
> > > +			 * SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE flag, but a
> > > +			 * non-fatal signal was received before we could
> > > +			 * transition we could erroneously end our wait early.
> > > +			 *
> > > +			 * The next wait for completion will ensure the signal
> > > +			 * was not fatal.
> > > +			 */
> > > +			if (interruptible && !notification_interruptible(&n))
> > > +				continue;
> > 
> > I'm trying to understand how one would hit this race,
> > 
> 
> I'm thinking:
> P: Process that "generates" notification
> S: Supervisor
> U: User
> 
> P: Generated notification
> S: ioctl(RECV...) // With wait_killable flag.
> ...complete is called in the supervisor, but the P may not be woken up...
> U: kill -SIGTERM $P
> ...signal gets delivered to p and causes wakeup and
> wait_for_completion_interruptible returns 1...
> 
> Then you need to check the race

I see, thanks. This seems like a consequence of having the flag be
per-RECV-call vs. per-filter. Seems like it might be simpler to have
it be per-filter?

Tycho