On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:31 AM Christian Brauner
<christian.brauner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > + /* Check if we were woken up by a addfd message */
> > > + addfd = list_first_entry_or_null(&n.addfd,
> > > + struct seccomp_kaddfd, list);
> > > + if (addfd && n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
> > > + seccomp_handle_addfd(addfd);
> > > + mutex_unlock(&match->notify_lock);
> > > + goto wait;
> > > + }
> > > ret = n.val;
> > > err = n.error;
> > > flags = n.flags;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* If there were any pending addfd calls, clear them out */
> > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(addfd, tmp, &n.addfd, list) {
> > > + /* The process went away before we got a chance to handle it */
> > > + addfd->ret = -ESRCH;
> > > + list_del_init(&addfd->list);
> > > + complete(&addfd->completion);
> > > + }
>
> I forgot to ask this in my first review before, don't you need a
> complete(&addfd->completion) call in seccomp_notify_release() before
> freeing it?
>
When complete(&knotif->ready) is called in seccomp_notify_release,
subsequently the notifier (seccomp_do_user_notification) will be woken up and
it'll fail this check:
if (addfd && n.state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED)
Falling through to:
/* If there were any pending addfd calls, clear them out */
list_for_each_entry_safe(addfd, tmp, &n.addfd, list) {
/* The process went away before we got a chance to handle it */
addfd->ret = -ESRCH;
list_del_init(&addfd->list);
complete(&addfd->completion);
}
Although ESRCH isn't the "right" response, this fall through behaviour
should work.
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
