On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:56:41AM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 04:11:00PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > void seccomp_filter_release(const struct task_struct *tsk)
> > {
> > struct seccomp_filter *orig = READ_ONCE(tsk->seccomp.filter);
> >
> > smp_store_release(&tsk->seccomp.filter, NULL);
>
> I need to go through the memory ordering requirements before I can say
> yay or nay confidently to this. :)
>
> > __seccomp_filter_release(orig);
> > }
The only caller will be release_task() after dethread, so honestly this
was just me being paranoid. I don't think it actually needs the
READ_ONCE() nor the store_release. I think I wrote all that before I'd
convinced myself it was safe to remove a filter then. But I'm still
suspicious given the various ways release_task() gets called... I just
know that if mode 2 is set and filter == NULL, seccomp will fail closed,
so I went the paranoid route. :)
--
Kees Cook
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
