Hi Andy,

On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 05:36:33PM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > The actual implementation of this is fairly small, although getting the
> > synchronization right was/is slightly complex. Also worth noting that there
> > is one race still present:
> >
> >   1. a task does a SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF
> >   2. the userspace handler reads this notification
> >   3. the task dies
> >   4. a new task with the same pid starts
> >   5. this new task does a SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF, gets the same cookie id
> >      that the previous one did
> >   6. the userspace handler writes a response
> I'm slightly confused.  I thought the id was never reused for a given
> struct seccomp_filter.  (Also, shouldn't the id be u64, not u32?)

Well, what happens when u32/64 overflows? Eventually it will wrap.

> On very quick reading, I have a question.  What happens if a process
> has two seccomp_filters attached, one of them returns
> SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF, and the *other* one has a listener?

Good question, in seccomp_run_filters(), the first (lowest, last
applied) filter who returns SECCOMP_RET_USER_NOTIF is the one that
gets the notification and the other receives nothing.

I don't really have any reason to prefer this behavior, it's just what
happened without much thought.



Reply via email to