On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 04:22:40 +1000
"Indan Zupancic" <indan@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, April 7, 2012 06:23, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > hm, I'm surprised that we don't have a zero-returning implementation of
> > is_compat_task() when CONFIG_COMPAT=n. Seems silly. Blames Arnd.
>
> It's sneakily hidden at the end of compat.h.
>
> >> +/**
> >> + * get_u32 - returns a u32 offset into data
> >> + * @data: a unsigned 64 bit value
> >> + * @index: 0 or 1 to return the first or second 32-bits
> >> + *
> >> + * This inline exists to hide the length of unsigned long.
> >> + * If a 32-bit unsigned long is passed in, it will be extended
> >> + * and the top 32-bits will be 0. If it is a 64-bit unsigned
> >> + * long, then whatever data is resident will be properly returned.
> >> + */
> >> +static inline u32 get_u32(u64 data, int index)
> >> +{
> >> + return ((u32 *)&data)[index];
> >> +}
> >
> > This seems utterly broken on big-endian machines. If so: fix. If not:
> > add comment explaining why?
>
> It's not a bug, it's intentional.
Well it looks like a bug, which is why I suggest that it be clearly
commented.
> >
> >> + if (total_insns > MAX_INSNS_PER_PATH)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Installing a seccomp filter requires that the task have
> >> + * CAP_SYS_ADMIN in its namespace or be running with no_new_privs.
> >> + * This avoids scenarios where unprivileged tasks can affect the
> >> + * behavior of privileged children.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!current->no_new_privs &&
> >> + security_capable_noaudit(current_cred(), current_user_ns(),
> >> + CAP_SYS_ADMIN) != 0)
> >> + return -EACCES;
> >> +
> >> + /* Allocate a new seccomp_filter */
> >> + filter = kzalloc(sizeof(struct seccomp_filter) + fp_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > I think this gives userspace an easy way of causing page allocation
> > failure warnings, by permitting large kmalloc() attempts. Add
> > __GFP_NOWARN?
>
> Max is 32kb. sk_attach_filter() in net/core/filter.c is worse,
> it allocates up to 512kb before even checking the length.
An order-3 allocation attempt is pretty fragile. This will sometimes
fail.
> What about using GFP_USER (and adding __GFP_NOWARN to GFP_USER) instead?
Let's be conventional and use the open-coded __GFP_NOWARN.
__GFP_NOWARN says "this is a big allocation which will sometimes fail
and I have carefully reviewed the failure paths and runtime tested
them".
Please carefully review the failure paths and runtime test them ;)
> >> + /* Check and rewrite the fprog via the skb checker */
> >> + ret = sk_chk_filter(filter->insns, filter->len);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto fail;
> >> +
> >> + /* Check and rewrite the fprog for seccomp use */
> >> + ret = seccomp_chk_filter(filter->insns, filter->len);
> >
> > "check" is spelled "check"!
>
> Yes, it is and he did spell "check" as "Check".
>
> seccomp_chk_filter() mirrors sk_chk_filter(). So it refers to
> "chk", not "check".
bah. Two poor identifiers isn't better than one. Whatever.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
