[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96024881-1bcc-33af-6285-d9a904de963e@digikod.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:18:04 +0200
From: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Casey Schaufler <casey@...aufler-ca.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
David Drysdale
<drysdale@...gle.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Morris <james.l.morris@...cle.com>, Jann Horn <jann@...jh.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
"Serge E . Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>,
"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 05/11] seccomp: Split put_seccomp_filter()
with put_seccomp()
On 19/04/2017 00:47, Mickaël Salaün wrote:
>
> On 19/04/2017 00:23, Kees Cook wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:46 PM, Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net> wrote:
>>> The semantic is unchanged. This will be useful for the Landlock
>>> integration with seccomp (next commit).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mickaël Salaün <mic@...ikod.net>
>>> Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
>>> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/seccomp.h | 4 ++--
>>> kernel/fork.c | 2 +-
>>> kernel/seccomp.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
>>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/seccomp.h b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>> index ecc296c137cd..e25aee2cdfc0 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/seccomp.h
>>> @@ -77,10 +77,10 @@ static inline int seccomp_mode(struct seccomp *s)
>>> #endif /* CONFIG_SECCOMP */
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER
>>> -extern void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>> +extern void put_seccomp(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>> extern void get_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk);
>>> #else /* CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER */
>>> -static inline void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> +static inline void put_seccomp(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> {
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>>> index 6c463c80e93d..a27d8e67ce33 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>>> @@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ void free_task(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> #endif
>>> rt_mutex_debug_task_free(tsk);
>>> ftrace_graph_exit_task(tsk);
>>> - put_seccomp_filter(tsk);
>>> + put_seccomp(tsk);
>>> arch_release_task_struct(tsk);
>>> if (tsk->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
>>> free_kthread_struct(tsk);
>>> diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>> index 65f61077ad50..326f79e32127 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
>>> @@ -64,6 +64,8 @@ struct seccomp_filter {
>>> /* Limit any path through the tree to 256KB worth of instructions. */
>>> #define MAX_INSNS_PER_PATH ((1 << 18) / sizeof(struct sock_filter))
>>>
>>> +static void put_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter);
>>
>> Can this be reorganized easily to avoid a forward-declaration?
>
> I didn't want to move too much code but I will.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Endianness is explicitly ignored and left for BPF program authors to manage
>>> * as per the specific architecture.
>>> @@ -314,7 +316,7 @@ static inline void seccomp_sync_threads(void)
>>> * current's path will hold a reference. (This also
>>> * allows a put before the assignment.)
>>> */
>>> - put_seccomp_filter(thread);
>>> + put_seccomp_filter(thread->seccomp.filter);
>>> smp_store_release(&thread->seccomp.filter,
>>> caller->seccomp.filter);
>>>
>>> @@ -476,10 +478,11 @@ static inline void seccomp_filter_free(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> -/* put_seccomp_filter - decrements the ref count of tsk->seccomp.filter */
>>> -void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> +/* put_seccomp_filter - decrements the ref count of a filter */
>>> +static void put_seccomp_filter(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
>>> {
>>> - struct seccomp_filter *orig = tsk->seccomp.filter;
>>> + struct seccomp_filter *orig = filter;
>>> +
>>> /* Clean up single-reference branches iteratively. */
>>> while (orig && atomic_dec_and_test(&orig->usage)) {
>>> struct seccomp_filter *freeme = orig;
>>> @@ -488,6 +491,11 @@ void put_seccomp_filter(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> +void put_seccomp(struct task_struct *tsk)
>>> +{
>>> + put_seccomp_filter(tsk->seccomp.filter);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static void seccomp_init_siginfo(siginfo_t *info, int syscall, int reason)
>>> {
>>> memset(info, 0, sizeof(*info));
>>> @@ -914,7 +922,7 @@ long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
>>> if (copy_to_user(data, fprog->filter, bpf_classic_proglen(fprog)))
>>> ret = -EFAULT;
>>>
>>> - put_seccomp_filter(task);
>>> + put_seccomp_filter(task->seccomp.filter);
>>> return ret;
>>
>> I don't like that the arguments to get_seccomp_filter() and
>> put_seccomp_filter() are now different. I think they should match for
>> readability.
>
> OK, I can do that.
>
Kees, can I send this as a separate patch?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
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.
