On 09/20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 09/20, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for cleaning this up, I'll be happy to test whatever final
> > patch we come up with.
>
> Well, I just noticed you sent another "[PATCH] ptrace, seccomp: add support
> for retrieving seccomp flags" today...
>
> So if we need get_nth() helper please consider the UNTESTED change below
> (on top of this fix). If you agree with this code, feel free to incorporate
> it into your patch.

and probably we should shift the CAP_SYS_ADMIN/SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED into
get_nth() too, see v2 below.

Perhaps it makes sense to add a comment to explain that spin_lock_irq(siglock)
is only correct because the caller is the tracer, and thus the TASK_TRACED
"task" can't exit. Otherwise we would need lock_task_sighand().

Oleg.


--- a/kernel/seccomp.c
+++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
@@ -855,48 +855,53 @@ long prctl_set_seccomp(unsigned long seccomp_mode, char 
__user *filter)
 }
 
 #if defined(CONFIG_SECCOMP_FILTER) && defined(CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE)
-long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
-                       void __user *data)
+static struct seccomp_filter *
+get_nth_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off)
 {
-       struct seccomp_filter *filter;
-       struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
-       long ret;
-       unsigned long count = 0;
+       struct seccomp_filter *orig, *filter;
+       unsigned long count;
 
        if (!capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN) ||
            current->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_DISABLED) {
-               return -EACCES;
+               return ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
        }
 
+       if (task->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER)
+               return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+
        spin_lock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
-       if (task->seccomp.mode != SECCOMP_MODE_FILTER) {
-               ret = -EINVAL;
-               goto out;
-       }
+       get_seccomp_filter(task);
+       orig = task->seccomp.filter;
+       spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
 
-       filter = task->seccomp.filter;
-       while (filter) {
-               filter = filter->prev;
+       count = 0;
+       for (filter = orig; filter; filter = filter->prev)
                count++;
-       }
 
-       if (filter_off >= count) {
-               ret = -ENOENT;
+       filter = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
+       if (filter_off >= count)
                goto out;
-       }
-       count -= filter_off;
 
-       filter = task->seccomp.filter;
-       while (filter && count > 1) {
-               filter = filter->prev;
+       count -= filter_off;
+       for (filter = orig; count > 1; filter = filter->prev)
                count--;
-       }
 
-       if (WARN_ON(count != 1 || !filter)) {
-               /* The filter tree shouldn't shrink while we're using it. */
-               ret = -ENOENT;
-               goto out;
-       }
+       refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
+out:
+       __put_seccomp_filter(orig);
+       return filter;
+}
+
+long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long filter_off,
+                       void __user *data)
+{
+       struct seccomp_filter *filter;
+       struct sock_fprog_kern *fprog;
+       long ret;
+
+       filter = get_nth_filter(task, filter_off);
+       if (IS_ERR(filter))
+               return PTR_ERR(filter);
 
        fprog = filter->prog->orig_prog;
        if (!fprog) {
@@ -912,17 +917,10 @@ long seccomp_get_filter(struct task_struct *task, 
unsigned long filter_off,
        if (!data)
                goto out;
 
-       refcount_inc(&filter->usage);
-       spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
-
        if (copy_to_user(data, fprog->filter, bpf_classic_proglen(fprog)))
                ret = -EFAULT;
-
-       __put_seccomp_filter(filter);
-       return ret;
-
 out:
-       spin_unlock_irq(&task->sighand->siglock);
+       __put_seccomp_filter(filter);
        return ret;
 }
 #endif

Reply via email to