Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] seccomp: add support for passing fds via USER_NOTIF

Tycho Andersen
2018-09-19T14:38:42Z

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 07:19:56AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 2018, at 2:55 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 04:52:38PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:28 AM, Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws> 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().
> >>>
> >>> I've proposed one API here, but I'm open to other options. In particular,
> >>> this only lets you return an fd from a syscall, which may not be enough in
> >>> all cases. For example, if an fd is written to an output parameter instead
> >>> of returned, the current API can't handle this. Another case is that
> >>> netlink takes as input fds sometimes (IFLA_NET_NS_FD, e.g.). If netlink
> >>> ever decides to install an fd and output it, we wouldn't be able to handle
> >>> this either.
> >>
> >> An alternative could be to have an API (an ioctl on the listener,
> >> perhaps) that just copies an fd into the tracee. There would be the
> >> obvious set of options: do we replace an existing fd or allocate a new
> >> one, and is it CLOEXEC. Then the tracer could add an fd and then
> >> return it just like it's a regular number.
> >>
> >> I feel like this would be more flexible and conceptually simpler, but
> >> maybe a little slower for the common cases. What do you think?
> >
> > I'm just implementing this now, and there's one question: when do we
> > actually do the fd install? Should we do it when the user calls
> > SECCOMP_NOTIF_PUT_FD, or when the actual response is sent? It feels
> > like we should do it when the response is sent, instead of doing it
> > right when SECCOMP_NOTIF_PUT_FD is called, since if there's a
> > subsequent signal and the tracer decides to discard the response,
> > we'll have to implement some delete mechanism to delete the fd, but it
> > would have already been visible to the process, etc. So I'll go
> > forward with this unless there are strong objections, but I thought
> > I'd point it out just to avoid another round trip.
> >
> >
>
> Can you do that non-racily? That is, you need to commit to an fd *number* right away, but what if another thread uses the number before you actually install the fd?

I was thinking we could just do an __alloc_fd() and then do the
fd_install() when the response is sent or clean up the case that the
listener or task dies. I haven't actually tried to run the code yet,
so it's possible the locking won't work :)

> Do we really allow non-“kill” signals to interrupt the whole process? It might be the case that we don’t really need to clean up from signals if there’s a guarantee that the thread dies.

Yes, we do, because of this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/15/1122

I could change that to just be a killable wait, though; I don't have
strong opinions about it and several people have commented that the
code is kind of weird.

Tycho