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

From: Tycho Andersen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:18:59 -0600

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 09:05:29AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 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/[email-masked]
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email-masked]>
> > > ---
> > >  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?

Oh, derp, I see :) Yeah, maybe that would be good.

Tycho