Re: [PATCH 3/4] seccomp: Add SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD to get pidfd on listener trap

[Aleksa Sarai]

On 2020-01-24, Sargun Dhillon <sargun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 10:03 AM Tycho Andersen <tycho@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 01:17:42AM -0800, Sargun Dhillon wrote:
> > > Currently, this just opens the group leader of the thread that triggere
> > > the event, as pidfds (currently) are limited to group leaders.
> >
> > I don't love the semantics of this; when they're not limited to thread
> > group leaders any more, we won't be able to change this. Is that work
> > far off?
> >
> > Tycho
> 
> We would be able to change this in the future if we introduced a flag like
> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD_THREAD which would send a
> pidfd that's for the thread, and not just the group leader. The flag could
> either be XOR with SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD, or
> could require both. Alternatively, we can rename
> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD to
> SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_GROUP_LEADER_PIDFD.

Possibly unpopular proposal -- would it make sense to just store the
pidfd_open(2) flags rather than coming up with our own set for
SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF? If/when pidfds are expanded to include non-leaders
there will be a corresponding flag for pidfd_open(2). Something like:

	struct seccomp_notif {
		__u64 id;
		__u32 pid;
		__u32 flags;
		struct seccomp_data data;
		__u64 pidfd_flags; // or __u32 -- not sure what Christian plans
		__u32 pidfd;
		__u32 __padding;
	};

This does mean there'll be an additional flags field, but I think it's a
slightly more consistent way to indicate "SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_PIDFD
implies a pidfd_open(2) on the traced task".

-- 
Aleksa Sarai
Senior Software Engineer (Containers)
SUSE Linux GmbH
<https://www.cyphar.com/>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature