[PATCH RESEND 2/5] seccomp: Add wait_killable semantic to seccomp user notifier

Tycho Andersen tycho at tycho.pizza
Mon Apr 26 19:02:29 UTC 2021


On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:06:07AM -0700, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> @@ -1103,11 +1111,31 @@ static int seccomp_do_user_notification(int this_syscall,
>  	 * This is where we wait for a reply from userspace.
>  	 */
>  	do {
> +		interruptible = notification_interruptible(&n);
> +
>  		mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> -		err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> +		if (interruptible)
> +			err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
> +		else
> +			err = wait_for_completion_killable(&n.ready);
>  		mutex_lock(&match->notify_lock);
> -		if (err != 0)
> +
> +		if (err != 0) {
> +			/*
> +			 * There is a race condition here where if the
> +			 * notification was received with the
> +			 * SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE flag, but a
> +			 * non-fatal signal was received before we could
> +			 * transition we could erroneously end our wait early.
> +			 *
> +			 * The next wait for completion will ensure the signal
> +			 * was not fatal.
> +			 */
> +			if (interruptible && !notification_interruptible(&n))
> +				continue;

I'm trying to understand how one would hit this race,

> @@ -1457,6 +1487,12 @@ static long seccomp_notify_recv(struct seccomp_filter *filter,
>  	unotif.pid = task_pid_vnr(knotif->task);
>  	unotif.data = *(knotif->data);
>  
> +	if (unotif.flags & SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_WAIT_KILLABLE) {
> +		knotif->wait_killable = true;
> +		complete(&knotif->ready);
> +	}
> +
> +
>  	knotif->state = SECCOMP_NOTIFY_SENT;
>  	wake_up_poll(&filter->wqh, EPOLLOUT | EPOLLWRNORM);
>  	ret = 0;

Seems like the idea is that if someone does a ioctl(RECV, ...) twice
they'll hit it? But doesn't the test for NOTIFY_INIT and return
-ENOENT above this hunk prevent that?

Thanks,

Tycho


More information about the Containers mailing list