On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/24, Kees Cook wrote:
>>
>> +static inline void seccomp_assign_mode(struct task_struct *task,
>> + unsigned long seccomp_mode)
>> +{
>> + BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(&task->sighand->siglock));
>> +
>> + task->seccomp.mode = seccomp_mode;
>> + set_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_SECCOMP);
>> +}
>
> OK, but unless task == current this can race with secure_computing().
> I think this needs smp_mb__before_atomic() and secure_computing() needs
> rmb() after test_bit(TIF_SECCOMP).
>
> Otherwise, can't __secure_computing() hit BUG() if it sees the old
> mode == SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED ?
>
> Or seccomp_run_filters() can see ->filters == NULL and WARN(),
> smp_load_acquire() only serializes that LOAD with the subsequent memory
> operations.
Hm, actually, now I'm worried about smp_load_acquire() being too slow
in run_filters().
The ordering must be:
- task->seccomp.filter must be valid before
- task->seccomp.mode is set, which must be valid before
- TIF_SECCOMP is set
But I don't want to impact secure_computing(). What's the best way to
make sure this ordering is respected?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
