On 09/21, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 3:57 AM, Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 09/20, Kees Cook wrote: > >> > >> Given how reference counting is done for filters, I'd be happier with > >> leaving the get_seccomp_filter() as-is, > > > > No, please note that filter != tsk->seccomp.filter, get_seccomp_filter() > > won't work. > > Ah yes, sorry, you're right. > > >> (i.e. don't open-code > >> the refcount_inc()). > > > > agreed, probably another __get_seccomp_filter(filter) makes sense, > > especially > > if we do other changes like get_nth(). > > > > But imo not in this fix. > > Regardless, whatever lands will need backport adjustment for > refcount_*/atomic_* in -stable.
yes, but this adjustment is trivial, and we will need it whatever we do in this fix, > Can you resend the two patches; I can send the backport to -stable manually... Not sure I understand... Do you mean this fix + untested "introduce get_nth_filter()" ? Can't we push this simple fix first? Then we can discuss the cleanups. Besides, the 2nd patch connects to Tycho's "[PATCH] ptrace, seccomp: add support for retrieving seccomp flags", otherwise it could be more simple. Oleg.
