Hi Oleg,
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 08:00:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Sorry for delay...
No problem, thanks for the review.
On 10/13, Tycho Andersen wrote:
quoted
--- a/include/uapi/linux/ptrace.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/ptrace.h
@@ -23,6 +23,8 @@
#define PTRACE_SYSCALL 24
+#define PTRACE_SECCOMP_GET_FILTER 40
Probably it would be better to add this at the end of other 0x42..
constants? After PTRACE_SETSIGMASK.
Ok, I'll switch it to 0x420c.
quoted
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ static struct seccomp_filter *seccomp_prepare_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
{
struct seccomp_filter *sfilter;
int ret;
+ const bool save_orig = config_enabled(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE);
if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);@@ -370,7 +371,7 @@ static struct seccomp_filter *seccomp_prepare_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
ret = bpf_prog_create_from_user(&sfilter->prog, fprog,
- seccomp_check_filter, false);
+ seccomp_check_filter, save_orig);
Can't comment, this depends on other changes I missed... but I don't
this you need my review here ;)
quoted
+#if defined(CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER) && defined(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE)
+long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
+ void __user *data)
+{
+ struct seccomp_filter *filter;
+ struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
+ long ret;
+ unsigned long count = 0;
+
+ spin_lock_irq(¤t->sighand->siglock);
+ if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
+ current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
+ ret = -EACCES;
+ goto out_self;
+ }
+
+ spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
Oh, no, you can't do this.
6 more quoted lines
Based on some previous discussion, I don't think we need the current
task's lock at all really. The only reason I'm taking it here is
because we take it elsewhere in the code when we read
current->seccomp.mode, and both Kees and I were too paranoid to remove
it.
We could unlock right after we check the perms, but then a thread
which ptraced some task could inspect its filters at the same time as
a sibling was installing filters via TSYNC. I don't think this is
really a problem, but it's worth pointing out. If we're going to
unlock right after the checks, we probably don't need the current
task's lock at all.
Tycho