From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tycho Andersen Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] seccomp: add support for passing fds via USER_NOTIF Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 10:22:46 -0600 Message-ID: <20180906162246.GB3326@cisco.cisco.com> References: <20180906152859.7810-1-tycho@tycho.ws> <20180906152859.7810-5-tycho@tycho.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jann Horn Cc: Kees Cook , kernel list , containers@lists.linux-foundation.org, Linux API , Andy Lutomirski , Oleg Nesterov , "Eric W. Biederman" , "Serge E. Hallyn" , Christian Brauner , Tyler Hicks , suda.akihiro@lab.ntt.co.jp List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 06:15:18PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:29 PM Tycho Andersen wrote: > > The idea here is that the userspace handler should be able to pass an fd > > back to the trapped task, for example so it can be returned from socket(). > [...] > > diff --git a/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst b/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > index d1498885c1c7..1c0aab306426 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/userspace-api/seccomp_filter.rst > > @@ -235,6 +235,9 @@ The interface for a seccomp notification fd consists of two structures: > > __u64 id; > > __s32 error; > > __s64 val; > > + __u8 return_fd; > > + __u32 fd; > > + __u32 fd_flags; > > Normally, syscalls that take an optional file descriptor accept a > signed 32-bit number, with -1 standing for "no file descriptor". Is > there a reason why this uses a separate variable to signal whether an > fd was provided? No real reason other than I looked at the bpf code and they were using __u32 for bpf (but I think in their case the fd args are not optional). I'll switch it to __s32/-1 for the next version. > Apart from that, this patch looks good to me. Thanks, Tycho