On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 07:00:43PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:30 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 10:22:46AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:29 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The idea here is that the userspace handler should be able to pass an fd > > > > > back to the trapped task, for example so it can be returned from socket(). > > > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > > > > index d1498885c1c7..1c0aab306426 100644 > > > > > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,9 @@ The interface for a seccomp notification fd consists of two structures: > > > > > __u64 id; > > > > > __s32 error; > > > > > __s64 val; > > > > > + __u8 return_fd; > > > > > + __u32 fd; > > > > > + __u32 fd_flags; > > > > > > > > Normally, syscalls that take an optional file descriptor accept a > > > > signed 32-bit number, with -1 standing for "no file descriptor". Is > > > > there a reason why this uses a separate variable to signal whether an > > > > fd was provided? > > > > > > No real reason other than I looked at the bpf code and they were using > > > __u32 for bpf (but I think in their case the fd args are not > > > optional). I'll switch it to __s32/-1 for the next version. > > > > Oh, I think there is a reason actually: since this is an API addition, > > the "0" value needs to be the previously default behavior if userspace > > doesn't specify it. Since the previously default behavior was not to > > return an fd, and we want to allow fd == 0, we need the extra flag to > > make this work. > > > > This is really only a problem because we're introducing this stuff in > > a second patch (mostly to illustrate how extending the response > > structure would work). I could fold this into the first patch if we > > want, or we could keep the return_fd bits if the illustration is > > useful. > > I feel like adding extra struct fields just so that it is possible to > write programs against the intermediate new API between two kernel > commits is taking things a bit far. Yep, I tend to agree with you. I'll fold the whole thing into the first patch for the next version. Tycho
