[PATCH v7 7/9] seccomp: implement SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/24, Kees Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 06/23, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> +static pid_t seccomp_can_sync_threads(void)
> >> +{
> >> +     struct task_struct *thread, *caller;
> >> +
> >> +     BUG_ON(write_can_lock(&tasklist_lock));
> >> +     BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&current->sighand->siglock));
> >> +
> >> +     if (current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER)
> >> +             return -EACCES;
> >> +
> >> +     /* Validate all threads being eligible for synchronization. */
> >> +     thread = caller = current;
> >> +     for_each_thread(caller, thread) {
> >> +             pid_t failed;
> >> +
> >> +             if (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ||
> >> +                 (thread->seccomp.mode == SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER &&
> >> +                  is_ancestor(thread->seccomp.filter,
> >> +                              caller->seccomp.filter)))
> >> +                     continue;
> >> +
> >> +             /* Return the first thread that cannot be synchronized. */
> >> +             failed = task_pid_vnr(thread);
> >> +             /* If the pid cannot be resolved, then return -ESRCH */
> >> +             if (failed == 0)
> >> +                     failed = -ESRCH;
> >
> > forgot to mention, task_pid_vnr() can't fail. sighand->siglock is held,
> > for_each_thread() can't see a thread which has passed unhash_process().
>
> Certainly good to know, but I'd be much more comfortable leaving this
> check as-is. Having "failed" return with "0" would be very very bad
> (userspace would think the filter had been successfully applied, etc).
> I'd rather stay highly defensive here.

OK, agreed. Although in this case I'd suggest

		if (WARN_ON(failed == 0))
			failed = -ESRCH;

but I won't insist.

Oleg.