On 10/30, Tycho Andersen wrote:
>
> > I am not sure I understand the value of
> > signaled/SECCOMP_NOTIF_FLAG_SIGNALED...
> > I mean, why it is actually useful?
> >
> > Sorry if this was already discussed.
>
> :) no problem, many people have complained about this. This is an
> implementation of Andy's suggestion here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/15/1122
>
> You can see some more detailed discussion here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/9/21/138
Cough, sorry, I simply can't understand what are you talking about ;)
It seems that I need to read all the previous emails... So let me ask
a stupid question below.
> > But my main concern is that either way wait_for_completion_killable() allows
> > to trivially create a process which doesn't react to SIGSTOP, not good...
> >
> > Note also that this can happen if, say, both the tracer and tracee run in
> > the
> > same process group and SIGSTOP is sent to their pgid, if the tracer gets the
> > signal first the tracee won't stop.
> >
> > Of freezer. try_to_freeze_tasks() can fail if it freezes the tracer before
> > it does SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND.
>
> I think in general the way this is intended to be used these things
> wouldn't happen.
Why?
> was malicious and had the ability to create a user namespace to
> exhaust pids this way,
Not sure I understand how this connects to my question... nevermind.
> so perhaps we should drop this part of the
> patch. I have no real need for it, but perhaps Andy can elaborate?
Yes I think it would be nice to avoid wait_for_completion_killable().
So please help me to understand the problem. Once again, why can not
seccomp_do_user_notification() use wait_for_completion_interruptible() only?
This is called before the task actually starts the syscall, so
-ERESTARTNOINTR if signal_pending() can't hurt.
Now lets suppose seccomp_do_user_notification() simply does
err = wait_for_completion_interruptible(&n.ready);
if (err < 0 && state != SECCOMP_NOTIFY_REPLIED) {
syscall_set_return_value(ERESTARTNOINTR);
list_del(&n.list);
return -1;
}
(I am ignoring the locking/etc). Now the obvious problem is that the listener
doing SECCOMP_IOCTL_NOTIF_SEND can't distinguish -ENOENT from the case when the
tracee was killed, yes?
Is it that important?
Any other problem?
Oleg.
