On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 10:02:25PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 9:46 PM Tycho Andersen tycho@tycho.ws wrote:
On Wed, Mar 06, 2019 at 09:39:35PM +0100, Christian Brauner wrote:
- /* Prepare the new filter before holding any locks. */ prepared = seccomp_prepare_user_filter(filter); if (IS_ERR(prepared))
@@ -1302,7 +1315,7 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags, mutex_unlock(¤t->signal->cred_guard_mutex); out_put_fd: if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER) {
if (ret < 0) {
if (ret) {Why that change but keep checking if (ret < 0) further up?
Not sure what you mean here. The only other place I see that we check something is < 0 in that function is the return value of get_unused_fd_flags(), which looks right to me?
The change just seemed it had nothing to do with the rest of the patch. Just making sure this didn't happen on accident and would cause regressions.
No, not on accident :). See the second half of the patch notes.
I can split it out into two separate patches if that makes more sense. In fact this hunk alone fixes the UAF, but you still get non-sensical return results even if it doesn't do anything terrible, hence the first hunk.
Cheers,
Tycho