On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 11:24 AM Eyal Birger eyal.birger@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 9:51 AM Andrii Nakryiko andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 6:10 AM Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:28 +0100 Oleg Nesterov oleg@redhat.com wrote:
A note for the seccomp maintainers...
I don't know what do you think, but I agree in advance that the very fact this patch adds "#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64" into __secure_computing() doesn't look nice.
Indeed. in_ia32_syscall() depends arch/x86 too. We can add an inline function like;
static inline bool is_uprobe_syscall(int syscall) {We can, and this is what I tried to suggest from the very beginning. But I agree with Eyal who decided to send the most trivial fix for -stable, we can add the helper later.
I don't think it should live in uprobes.h and I'd prefer something like arch_seccomp_ignored(int) but I won't insist.
yep, I think this is the way, keeping it as a general category. Should we also put rt_sigreturn there explicitly as well? Also, wouldn't it be better to have it as a non-arch-specific function for something like rt_sigreturn where defining it per each arch is cumbersome, and have the default implementation also call into an arch-specific function?
I like the more generic approach and keeping CONFIG_X86 out of seccomp, and more generic than uprobes, however, I'm not sure where a common part to place it which includes arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h would be. And as mentioned before, this would make this bugfix more complex to backport.
For that reason I wouldn't refactor handling rt_sigreturn as part of this fix.
SGTM, it can always be improved later, if necessary
Thanks! Eyal.