[PATCH v2 4/6] seccomp: handle multiple listeners case

From: Alexander Mikhalitsyn

Date: Tue Dec 02 2025 - 06:54:04 EST


If we have more than one listener in the tree and lower listener
wants us to continue syscall (SECCOMP_USER_NOTIF_FLAG_CONTINUE)
we must consult with upper listeners first, otherwise it is a
clear seccomp restrictions bypass scenario.

Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: bpf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Will Drewry <wad@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.pizza>
Cc: Andrei Vagin <avagin@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian Brauner <brauner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Stéphane Graber <stgraber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Tycho Andersen (AMD) <tycho@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Mikhalitsyn <aleksandr.mikhalitsyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
kernel/seccomp.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/kernel/seccomp.c b/kernel/seccomp.c
index ded3f6a6430b..262390451ff1 100644
--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -448,8 +448,21 @@ static u32 seccomp_run_filters(const struct seccomp_data *sd,

if (ACTION_ONLY(cur_ret) < ACTION_ONLY(ret)) {
ret = cur_ret;
+ /*
+ * No matter what we had before in matches->filters[],
+ * we need to overwrite it, because current action is more
+ * restrictive than any previous one.
+ */
matches->n = 1;
matches->filters[0] = f;
+ } else if ((ACTION_ONLY(cur_ret) == ACTION_ONLY(ret)) &&
+ ACTION_ONLY(cur_ret) == SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF) {
+ /*
+ * For multiple SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF results, we need to
+ * track all filters that resulted in the same action, because
+ * we might need to notify a few of them to get a final decision.
+ */
+ matches->filters[matches->n++] = f;
}
}
return ret;
@@ -1362,8 +1375,24 @@ static int __seccomp_filter(int this_syscall, const bool recheck_after_trace)
return 0;

case SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF:
- if (seccomp_do_user_notification(match, &sd))
- goto skip;
+ for (unsigned char i = 0; i < matches.n; i++) {
+ match = matches.filters[i];
+ /*
+ * If userspace wants us to skip this syscall, do so.
+ * But if userspace wants to continue syscall, we
+ * must consult with the upper-level filters listeners
+ * and act accordingly.
+ *
+ * Note, that if there are multiple filters returned
+ * SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF, and final result is
+ * SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF too, then seccomp_run_filters()
+ * has populated matches.filters[] array with all of them
+ * in order from the lowest-level (closest to a
+ * current->seccomp.filter) to the highest-level.
+ */
+ if (seccomp_do_user_notification(match, &sd))
+ goto skip;
+ }

return 0;

--
2.43.0