Re: [PATCH v4 10/11] seccomp: Switch addfd to Extensible Argument ioctl

[Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:55:46AM -0600, Tycho Andersen wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 08:25:23PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > This patch is based on discussions[1] with Sargun Dhillon, Christian
> > Brauner, and David Laight. Instead of building size into the addfd
> > structure, make it a function of the ioctl command (which is how sizes are
> > normally passed to ioctls). To support forward and backward compatibility,
> > just mask out the direction and size, and match everything. The size (and
> > any future direction) checks are done along with copy_struct_from_user()
> > logic. Also update the selftests to check size bounds.
> > 
> > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200612104629.GA15814@ircssh-2.c.rugged-nimbus-611.internal
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >  include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h                  |  2 -
> >  kernel/seccomp.c                              | 21 ++++++----
> >  tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++---
> >  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > index c347160378e5..473a61695ac3 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/seccomp.h
> > @@ -118,7 +118,6 @@ struct seccomp_notif_resp {
> >  
> >  /**
> >   * struct seccomp_notif_addfd
> > - * @size: The size of the seccomp_notif_addfd structure
> >   * @id: The ID of the seccomp notification
> >   * @flags: SECCOMP_ADDFD_FLAG_*
> >   * @srcfd: The local fd number
> > @@ -126,7 +125,6 @@ struct seccomp_notif_resp {
> >   * @newfd_flags: The O_* flags the remote FD should have applied
> >   */
> >  struct seccomp_notif_addfd {
> > -	__u64 size;
> 
> Huh? Won't this break builds?

Only if they use addfd without this patch? :) Are you saying I should
collapse this patch into the main addfd and test patches?

-- 
Kees Cook