From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231D83AF678 for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776269267; cv=none; b=AP1SKwjapnCZrGD/ZdkJPoUIa0WpYhkks4LlNn1HBuc2aGeX41GB7d1kQLvibOJ5cMcZKR5CBQG2+DZj7+QM9/aBW6IGAj5z8NardKgNVrJFrGlA6IVcVA7PAtqew42OAq6KQmo6lMoTZNtrAdhfF8H/JLjFE7FGFtX14X/Qjwo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1776269267; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DSoYNlF/l9A22L4ULIfiHjtDd08RDzC6ABmEc2hm71g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=QcmlZ9lNAPwAJZx4XfiCEWxfYa7uvffWoD0OdeGU5efuxuNHl5pDjizGxdHoL5Yo7qQACiTLUvgtiJNPDrwXOOLI17qDzGMIcgwUJld4A0b/jCJjOzp5YEZZIQwTpP8yzyS9u5QzK+t8RakbbFD91xH7amS5i7XwDEUuxE4eCAw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=Mq2Jtwq6; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Mq2Jtwq6" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BC31CC19424; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 16:07:46 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1776269266; bh=DSoYNlF/l9A22L4ULIfiHjtDd08RDzC6ABmEc2hm71g=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Mq2Jtwq6QRNgDNbYJHlgvIYjtknCwgRKcQanW0wNfoA1UuICDILi44JL+Jc+3JpVI fWSaJDl2tfM/5373bMliL9lDzFcmiSsC6uyBW6sOOgBuBpcYaGTlT9wXUf3xA6GXTU wSR54NbYIr2S0Gqyht9MU4qkOpfWNeVuFhv088FZxwTG+cjNUZcEWkitXBzIObU1SX aX4GdexMVJhGoNH4Q+Xygqn3kWt7zs0SQ4QDl3NUiBYvl02zI0cSUGnz7TtcAwQ/4S gB6mR1y9p1+03LQfm14/0lA+yb6P0f1x9IuKIQtPXJP5qJGwmsXj00vscGCcc6SgJt bU8NRaWg8BRlQ== Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 09:07:46 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Will Drewry , Kusaram Devineni , Max Ver , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] seccomp: defer syscall_rollback() to get_signal() Message-ID: <202604150906.9B97BB3@keescook> References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 12:44:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 04/14, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > Kees, Andy, et al, please comment. I think the usage of syscall_rollback() > > in __seccomp_filter() is not right. > > I'll recheck, but in fact this logic looks broken... force_sig_seccomp() assumes > that it can't race with (say) SIGSEGV which has a handler. And 2/2 makes the things > slightly worse. So self-nack for now. Oh, I just read this now. Yeah, that's a good point. Hrmpf. A corner case, but yeah, the proposed change makes things worse. -- Kees Cook