On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:56:00PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:36:09PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:52:03PM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 02:43:49PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > (While I'm here -- why can there be only one listener per task? The
> > > > notifications are filter-specific, not task-specific?)
> > >
> > > Not sure what you mean here?
> >
> > tatic struct file *init_listener(struct seccomp_filter *filter)
> > {
> > struct file *ret = ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
> > struct seccomp_filter *cur;
> >
> > for (cur = current->seccomp.filter; cur; cur = cur->prev) {
> > if (cur->notif)
> > goto out;
> > }
> >
> > ...
> >
> > /* Installing a second listener in the chain should EBUSY */
> > EXPECT_EQ(user_trap_syscall(__NR_getpid,
> > SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER),
> > -1);
> > EXPECT_EQ(errno, EBUSY);
> >
> >
> > Why does this limit exist? Since the fd is tied to a specific filter,
> > I don't see conflicts about having multiple USER_NOTIF filters on one
> > task -- the monitor's response will either fake it or continue it, so
> > there is no "composition" needed? I must be missing something.
>
> It exists because Andy asked for it :)
>
> I agree that there's no technical reason for it to be there. I think
> it's just that the semantics were potentially confusing, and it wasn't
> a requirement anyone had to have multiples attached.
Okay, sounds good. It just seems seccomp continues to grow "layers", so
I'm eyeing this aspect of user_notif. i.e. what if systemd decides to
add a user_notif for something and now suddenly the containers can't use
it. Or if some complex thing inside a container tries to use user_notif
and it can't because the container manager is doing it, etc.
Future work! :)
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
