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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210430204939.5152-1-sargun@sargun.me> <20210430204939.5152-3-sargun@sargun.me>
 <CALCETrXWFbB7v8wRKeNC-gxMqUZ9ZJUZx9nQiLu64qYi2Bx5FQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXWFbB7v8wRKeNC-gxMqUZ9ZJUZx9nQiLu64qYi2Bx5FQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me>
Date:   Fri, 30 Apr 2021 17:09:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMp4zn8A2n7EtbR_=fG99MPgpDTgn-Ju-AzQ8F2rYU9Fri3YTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] seccomp: Add wait_killable semantic to seccomp
 user notifier
To:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Mauricio_V=C3=A1squez_Bernal?= <mauricio@kinvolk.io>,
        Rodrigo Campos <rodrigo@kinvolk.io>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>,
        Giuseppe Scrivano <gscrivan@redhat.com>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@ubuntu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 4:23 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 1:49 PM Sargun Dhillon <sargun@sargun.me> wrote:
> >
> > The user notifier feature allows for filtering of seccomp notifications in
> > userspace. While the user notifier is handling the syscall, the notifying
> > process can be preempted, thus ending the notification. This has become a
> > growing problem, as Golang has adopted signal based async preemption[1]. In
> > this, it will preempt every 10ms, thus leaving the supervisor less than
> > 10ms to respond to a given notification. If the syscall require I/O (mount,
> > connect) on behalf of the process, it can easily take 10ms.
> >
> > This allows the supervisor to set a flag that moves the process into a
> > state where it is only killable by terminating signals as opposed to all
> > signals. The process can still be terminated before the supervisor receives
> > the notification.
>
> This is still racy, right?  If a signal arrives after the syscall
> enters the seccomp code but before the supervisor gets around to
> issuing the new ioctl, the syscall will erroneously return -EINTR,
> right?
>
> Can we please just fully fix this instead of piling a racy partial fix
> on top of an incorrect design?
>
> --Andy

I thought that you were fine with this approach. Sorry.

Maybe this is a dumb question, what's wrong with returning an EINTR if the
syscall was never observed by the supervisor?

I think that the only other reasonable design is that we add data to the
existing action which makes it sleep in wait_killable state.