LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com>
To: Jann Horn <jann@thejh.net>
Cc: Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com>,
	linux-man@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, Jeff Dike <jdike@addtoit.com>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
	Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] seccomp.2: Add note about alarm(2) not being sufficient to limit runtime
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 21:01:42 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <21761.61606.624750.9745@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150312130701.GA11073@pc.thejh.net>

Jann Horn writes:
 > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:43:50PM +0100, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
 > > Jann Horn writes:
 > >  > Or should I throw this patch away and write a patch
 > >  > for the prctl() manpage instead that documents that
 > >  > being able to call sigreturn() implies being able to
 > >  > effectively call sigprocmask(), at least on some
 > >  > architectures like X86?
 > > 
 > > Well, that is the semantics of sigreturn().  It is essentially
 > > setcontext() [which includes the actions of sigprocmask()], but
 > > with restrictions on parameter placement (at least on x86).
 > > 
 > > You could introduce some setting to restrict that aspect for
 > > seccomp processes, but you can't change this for normal processes
 > > without breaking things.
 > 
 > Then I think it's probably better and easier to just document the existing
 > behavior? If a new setting would have to be introduced and developers would
 > need to be aware of that, it's probably easier to just tell everyone to use
 > SIGKILL.
 > 
 > Does this manpage patch look good?

LGTM

Acked-by: Mikael Pettersson <mikpelinux@gmail.com>

 > 
 > ---
 >  man2/seccomp.2 | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 >  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
 > 
 > diff --git a/man2/seccomp.2 b/man2/seccomp.2
 > index 702ceb8..f762d07 100644
 > --- a/man2/seccomp.2
 > +++ b/man2/seccomp.2
 > @@ -64,6 +64,31 @@ Strict secure computing mode is useful for number-crunching
 >  applications that may need to execute untrusted byte code, perhaps
 >  obtained by reading from a pipe or socket.
 >  
 > +Note that although the calling thread can no longer call
 > +.BR sigprocmask (2),
 > +it can use
 > +.BR sigreturn (2)
 > +to block all signals apart from
 > +.BR SIGKILL
 > +and
 > +.BR SIGSTOP .
 > +Therefore, to reliably terminate it,
 > +.BR SIGKILL
 > +has to be used, meaning that e.g.
 > +.BR alarm (2)
 > +is not sufficient for restricting its runtime. Instead, use
 > +.BR timer_create (2)
 > +with
 > +.BR SIGEV_SIGNAL
 > +and
 > +.BR sigev_signo
 > +set to
 > +.BR SIGKILL
 > +or use
 > +.BR setrlimit (2)
 > +to set the hard limit for
 > +.BR RLIMIT_CPU .
 > +
 >  This operation is available only if the kernel is configured with
 >  .BR CONFIG_SECCOMP
 >  enabled.
 > -- 
 > 2.1.4

-- 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-03-12 20:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-11 17:42 [PATCH] Don't allow blocking of signals using sigreturn Jann Horn
2015-03-11 21:43 ` Mikael Pettersson
2015-03-11 22:26   ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-12  7:22     ` Mikael Pettersson
2015-03-12 13:07   ` [PATCH] seccomp.2: Add note about alarm(2) not being sufficient to limit runtime Jann Horn
2015-03-12 17:30     ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-03-12 17:33     ` Kees Cook
2015-03-12 20:01     ` Mikael Pettersson [this message]
2015-03-22 19:28     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=21761.61606.624750.9745@gargle.gargle.HOWL \
    --to=mikpelinux@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=jann@thejh.net \
    --cc=jdike@addtoit.com \
    --cc=keescook@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=wad@chromium.org \
    --cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] seccomp.2: Add note about alarm(2) not being sufficient to limit runtime' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).