[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:09:22 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: 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, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 06/12] seccomp: add system call filtering using BPF
Hello Will.
I missed the previous discussions, and I don't think I can read
all these emails now. So I apologize in advance if this was already
discussed.
On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> struct seccomp {
> int mode;
> + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> };
Minor nit, it seems that the new member can be "ifdef CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER"
> +static long seccomp_attach_filter(struct sock_fprog *fprog)
> +{
> + struct seccomp_filter *filter;
> + unsigned long fp_size = fprog->len * sizeof(struct sock_filter);
> + long ret;
> +
> + if (fprog->len == 0 || fprog->len > BPF_MAXINSNS)
> + return -EINVAL;
OK, this limits the memory PR_SET_SECCOMP can use.
But,
> + /*
> + * If there is an existing filter, make it the prev and don't drop its
> + * task reference.
> + */
> + filter->prev = current->seccomp.filter;
> + current->seccomp.filter = filter;
> + return 0;
this doesn't limit the number of filters, looks like a DoS.
What if the application simply does prctl(PR_SET_SECCOMP, dummy_filter)
in an endless loop?
> +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.
Oleg.
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.
