On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov [off-list ref] wrote:

On 06/25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:

quoted

Write the filter, then smp_mb (or maybe a weaker barrier is okay),
then set the bit.

Yes, exactly, this is what I meant. Plas rmb() in __secure_computing().

But I still can't understand the rest of your discussion about the
ordering we need ;)

Let me try again from scratch.

Currently there are three relevant variables: TIF_SECCOMP,
seccomp.mode, and seccomp.filter.  __secure_computing needs
seccomp.mode and seccomp.filter to be in sync, and it wants (but
doesn't really need) TIF_SECCOMP to be in sync as well.

My suggestion is to rearrange it a bit.  Move mode into seccomp.filter
(so that filter == NULL implies no seccomp) and don't check
TIF_SECCOMP in secure_computing.  Then turning on seccomp is entirely
atomic except for the fact that the seccomp hooks won't be called if
filter != NULL but !TIF_SECCOMP.  This removes all ordering
requirements.

Alternatively, __secure_computing could still BUG_ON(!seccomp.filter).
In that case, filter needs to be set before TIF_SECCOMP is set, but
that's straightforward.

--Andy