Thread (35 messages) 35 messages, 6 authors, 2020-06-01

Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] seccomp: Introduce addfd ioctl to seccomp user notifier

From: Kees Cook <hidden>
Date: 2020-05-30 02:43:16
Also in: lkml

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 01:10:55AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
// And then SCM reads:
	for (i=0, cmfptr=(__force int __user *)CMSG_DATA(cm); i<fdmax;
	     i++, cmfptr++)
	{
		int new_fd;
		err = get_unused_fd_flags(MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC & msg->msg_flags
					  ? O_CLOEXEC : 0);
		if (err < 0)
			break;
		new_fd = err;
		err = put_user(new_fd, cmfptr);
		if (err) {
			put_unused_fd(new_fd);
			break;
		}

		err = file_receive(new_fd, fp[i]);
		if (err) {
			put_unused_fd(new_fd);
			break;
		}
	}

And our code reads:


static void seccomp_handle_addfd(struct seccomp_kaddfd *addfd)
{
	int ret, err;

	/*
	 * Remove the notification, and reset the list pointers, indicating
	 * that it has been handled.
	 */
	list_del_init(&addfd->list);

	if (addfd->fd == -1) {
		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(addfd->flags);
		if (ret < 0)
			goto err;

		err = file_receive(ret, addfd->file);
		if (err) {
			put_unused_fd(ret);
			ret = err;
		}
	} else {
		ret = file_receive_replace(addfd->fd, addfd->flags,
					   addfd->file);
	}

err:
	addfd->ret = ret;
	complete(&addfd->completion);
}


And the pidfd getfd code reads:

static int pidfd_getfd(struct pid *pid, int fd)
{
	struct task_struct *task;
	struct file *file;
	int ret, err;

	task = get_pid_task(pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
	if (!task)
		return -ESRCH;

	file = __pidfd_fget(task, fd);
	put_task_struct(task);
	if (IS_ERR(file))
		return PTR_ERR(file);

	ret = get_unused_fd_flags(O_CLOEXEC);
	if (ret >= 0) {
		err = file_receive(ret, file);
		if (err) {
			put_unused_fd(ret);
			ret = err;
		}
	}

	fput(file);
	return ret;
}
I mean, yes, that's certainly better, but it just seems a shame that
everyone has to do the get_unused/put_unused dance just because of how
SCM_RIGHTS does this weird put_user() in the middle.

Can anyone clarify the expected failure mode from SCM_RIGHTS? Can we
move the put_user() after instead? I think cleanup would just be:
replace_fd(fd, NULL, 0)

So:

(updated to skip sock updates on failure; thank you Christian!)

int file_receive(int fd, unsigned long flags, struct file *file)
{
	struct socket *sock;
	int ret;

	ret = security_file_receive(file);
	if (ret)
		return ret;

	/* Install the file. */
	if (fd == -1) {
		ret = get_unused_fd_flags(flags);
		if (ret >= 0)
			fd_install(ret, get_file(file));
	} else {
		ret = replace_fd(fd, file, flags);
	}

	/* Bump the sock usage counts. */
	if (ret >= 0) {
		sock = sock_from_file(addfd->file, &err);
		if (sock) {
			sock_update_netprioidx(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
			sock_update_classid(&sock->sk->sk_cgrp_data);
		}
	}

	return ret;
}

scm_detach_fds()
	...
	for (i=0, cmfptr=(__force int __user *)CMSG_DATA(cm); i<fdmax;
             i++, cmfptr++)
	{
		int new_fd;

		err = file_receive(-1, MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC & msg->msg_flags
                                          ? O_CLOEXEC : 0, fp[i]);
		if (err < 0)
			break;
		new_fd = err;

		err = put_user(err, cmfptr);
		if (err) {
			/*
			 * If we can't notify userspace that it got the
			 * fd, we need to unwind and remove it again.
			 */
			replace_fd(new_fd, NULL, 0);
			break;
		}
	}
	...



-- 
Kees Cook
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help