Re: [PATCH v5 0/6] seccomp: add PR_SECCOMP_EXT and SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_TSYNC

[Kees Cook]

Hi Andrew,

Would you be willing to carry this series? Andy Lutomirski appears
happy with it now. (Thanks again for all the feedback Andy!) If so, it
has a relatively small merge conflict with the bpf changes living in
net-next. Would you prefer I rebase against net-next, let sfr handle
it, get carried in net-next, or some other option?

Thanks!

-Kees


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This adds the ability for threads to request seccomp filter
> synchronization across their thread group (either at filter attach time
> or later). (For example, for Chrome to make sure graphic driver threads
> are fully confined after seccomp filters have been attached.)
>
> To support this, seccomp locking on writes is introduced, along with
> refactoring of no_new_privs. Races with thread creation are handled via
> the tasklist_list.
>
> I think all the concerns raised during the discussion[1] of the first
> version of this patch have been addressed. However, the races involved
> have tricked me before. :)
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Kees
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/1/13/795
>
> v5:
>  - move includes around (drysdale)
>  - drop set_nnp return value (luto)
>  - use smp_load_acquire/store_release (luto)
>  - merge nnp changes to seccomp always, fewer ifdef (luto)
> v4:
>  - cleaned up locking further, as noticed by David Drysdale
> v3:
>  - added SECCOMP_EXT_ACT_FILTER for new filter install options
> v2:
>  - reworked to avoid clone races
>



-- 
Kees Cook
Chrome OS Security
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/