Re: [PATCH v8 5/9] seccomp: split mode set routines

[Andy Lutomirski]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 06/25, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> Write the filter, then smp_mb (or maybe a weaker barrier is okay),
>> then set the bit.
>
> Yes, exactly, this is what I meant. Plas rmb() in __secure_computing().
>
> But I still can't understand the rest of your discussion about the
> ordering we need ;)

Let me try again from scratch.

Currently there are three relevant variables: TIF_SECCOMP,
seccomp.mode, and seccomp.filter.  __secure_computing needs
seccomp.mode and seccomp.filter to be in sync, and it wants (but
doesn't really need) TIF_SECCOMP to be in sync as well.

My suggestion is to rearrange it a bit.  Move mode into seccomp.filter
(so that filter == NULL implies no seccomp) and don't check
TIF_SECCOMP in secure_computing.  Then turning on seccomp is entirely
atomic except for the fact that the seccomp hooks won't be called if
filter != NULL but !TIF_SECCOMP.  This removes all ordering
requirements.

Alternatively, __secure_computing could still BUG_ON(!seccomp.filter).
In that case, filter needs to be set before TIF_SECCOMP is set, but
that's straightforward.

--Andy
--
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/