Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support

From: Oleg Nesterov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:43:35 +0100

On 02/27, Will Drewry wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
> >>
> >>  arch/Kconfig              |    1 +
> >>  include/linux/ptrace.h    |    7 +++++--
> >>  include/linux/seccomp.h   |    4 +++-
> >>  include/linux/tracehook.h |    6 ++++++
> >>  kernel/ptrace.c           |    4 ++++
> >>  kernel/seccomp.c          |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > FYI, this conflicts with the changes -mm tree.
> >
> > The changes in ptrace.* confict with Denys's
> > "ptrace: simplify PTRACE_foo constants and PTRACE_SETOPTIONS code"
> >
> > The change in tracehook.h conflicts with
> > "ptrace: the killed tracee should not enter the syscall"
>
> What's the best way to reconcile this in this day and age?

Of course I'd prefer if you make this change on top of Denys's patch ;)

Besides, if you agree with PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP/PTRACE_O_SECCOMP you
need only one trivial change in ptrace.h.

> I don't see
> these in kernel-next yet and I can't tell if there is a public -mm
> anywhere anymore.

Strange... I didn't check, but every patch in
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm-commits has this note:

	The -mm tree is included into linux-next and is updated
	there every 3-4 working days

> >> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> >> @@ -354,6 +354,24 @@ int __secure_computing_int(int this_syscall)
> >>                       seccomp_send_sigsys(this_syscall, reason_code);
> >>                       return -1;
> >>               }
> >> +             case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: {
> >> +                     int ret;
> >> +                     struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> >> +                     if (!(test_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) ||
> >> +                         !(current->ptrace & PT_TRACE_SECCOMP))
> >> +                             return -1;
> >> +                     /*
> >> +                      * PT_TRACE_SECCOMP and seccomp.trace indicate whether
> >> +                      * tracehook_report_syscall_entry needs to signal the
> >> +                      * tracer.  This avoids race conditions in hand off and
> >> +                      * the requirement for TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE ensures that
> >> +                      * we are in the syscall slow path.
> >> +                      */
> >> +                     current->seccomp.trace = 1;
> >> +                     ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> >> +                     current->seccomp.trace = 0;
> >> +                     return ret;
> >
> > To be honest, this interface looks a bit strange to me...
> >
> > Once again, sorry if this was already discussed. But perhaps it would
> > be better to introduce PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP/PTRACE_O_SECCOMP instead?
> >
> > SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: could simply do ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP)
> > unconditionaly. The tracer can set the option and do PTRACE_CONT if it
> > doesn't want the system call notifications.
>
> Works for me - this also gets rid of the extra int for brief state
> tracking. I'll switch over to that in the next rev.

Great. In this case this patch becomes really trivial. Just 2 defines
in ptrace.h and the unconditional ptrace_event() under SECCOMP_RET_TRACE.

But probably you should check fatal_signal_pending(current) after
ptrace_event() returns, ptrace_event() returns void.

Oleg.