Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] samples, selftests/seccomp: Zero out seccomp_notif

[Sargun Dhillon]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 1:18 PM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:48:39AM +0000, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > The seccomp_notif structure should be zeroed out prior to calling the
> > SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_RECV ioctl. Previously, the kernel did not check
> > whether these structures were zeroed out or not, so these worked.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sargun Dhillon <sargun@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  samples/seccomp/user-trap.c                   | 2 +-
> >  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 2 ++
> >  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > index 6d0125ca8af7..0ca8fb37cd79 100644
> > --- a/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > +++ b/samples/seccomp/user-trap.c
> > @@ -298,7 +298,6 @@ int main(void)
> >               req = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif);
> >               if (!req)
> >                       goto out_close;
> > -             memset(req, 0, sizeof(*req));
> >
> >               resp = malloc(sizes.seccomp_notif_resp);
> >               if (!resp)
> > @@ -306,6 +305,7 @@ int main(void)
> >               memset(resp, 0, sizeof(*resp));
>
> I know it's unrelated, but it's probably worth sending a patch to fix
> this to be sizes.seccomp_notif_resp instead of sizeof(*resp), since if
> the kernel is older this will over-zero things. I can do that, or you
> can add the patch to this series, just let me know which.

I was thinking about this, and initially, I chose to make the smaller
change. I think it might make more sense to combine the patch,
given that the memset behaviour is "incorrect" if we do it based on
sizeof(*req), or sizeof(*resp).

I'll go ahead and respin this patch with the change to call memset
based on sizes.

>
> But in any case, this patch is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tycho