[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+TzwCHpX6sGkQj4QDeZTR=MkGGaXawzAYbxCJQoT_9aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:15:38 -0800
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>>> +static struct seccomp_filter *get_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *orig)
>>> +{
>>> + if (!orig)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> + /* Reference count is bounded by the number of total processes. */
>>> + atomic_inc(&orig->usage);
>>> + return orig;
>>> +}
>>> ...
>>> +void copy_seccomp(struct seccomp *child, const struct seccomp *parent)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Other fields are handled by dup_task_struct. */
>>> + child->filter = get_seccomp_filter(parent->filter);
>>> +}
>>
>> This is purely cosmetic, but imho looks a bit confusing.
>>
>> We do not copy seccomp->mode and this is correct, it was already copied
>> implicitely. So why do we copy ->filter? This is not "symmetrical", afaics
>> you can simply do
>>
>> void copy_seccomp(struct seccomp *child)
>> {
>> if (child->filter)
>> atomic_inc(child->filter->usage);
>>
>> But once again, this is cosmetic, feel free to ignore.
>
> Right now get_seccomp_filter does the NULL check, so really this could
> be reduced to adding an external get_seccomp_filter(p->seccomp.filter)
> in place of copy_seccomp().
>
> As to removing the extra arg, that should be fine since the parent
> can't drop its refcount when copy_seccomp is called. At the very
> least, I can make that change so it reads more cleanly.
I had various conflicting thoughts while looking over the refcounting:
- get_seccomp_filter is defined static, and has a single caller: copy_seccomp()
- put isn't static, and has a single caller: kernel/fork.c:free_task()
- having only get_/put_ touch ->usage seems cleaner to me
- seccomp_attach_filter touches ->usage without get_seccomp_filter
- having the initializing routine use atomic_set(..., 1) is a common pattern
In a fit of extreme bike-shedding, I can't decide which is more sensible:
- rename put_seccomp_filter to free_seccomp_filter and inline the
get_seccomp_filter logic into copy_seccomp().
or
- create a wrapper for put_seccomp_filter named free_seccomp_filter so
that get_/put_ can both be static.
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
ChromeOS Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
