On 06/24, Kees Cook wrote:

On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote:

quoted

+static pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
+{
+     struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
+
+     BUG_ON(write_can_lock(&tasklist_lock));
+     BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&current->sighand->siglock));
+
+     if (current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER)
+             return -EACCES;
+
+     /* Validate all threads being eligible for synchronization. */
+     thread = caller = current;
+     for_each_thread(caller, thread) {
+             pid_t failed;
+
+             if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ||
+                 (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER &&
+                  is_ancestor(thread->seccomp.filter,
+                              caller->seccomp.filter)))
+                     continue;
+
+             /* Return the first thread that cannot be synchronized. */
+             failed = task_pid_vnr(thread);
+             /* If the pid cannot be resolved, then return -ESRCH */
+             if (failed == 0)
+                     failed = -ESRCH;

forgot to mention, task_pid_vnr() can't fail. sighand->siglock is held,
for_each_thread() can't see a thread which has passed unhash_process().

Certainly good to know, but I'd be much more comfortable leaving this
check as-is. Having "failed" return with "0" would be very very bad
(userspace would think the filter had been successfully applied, etc).
I'd rather stay highly defensive here.

OK, agreed. Although in this case I'd suggest

		if (WARN_ON(failed == 0))
			failed = -ESRCH;

but I won't insist.

Oleg.