Merge tag 'seccomp-v5.1-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux

Pull seccomp fixes from Kees Cook:
 "Syzbot found a use-after-free bug in seccomp due to flags that should
  not be allowed to be used together.

  Tycho fixed this, I updated the self-tests, and the syzkaller PoC has
  been running for several days without triggering KASan (before this
  fix, it would reproduce). These patches have also been in -next for
  almost a week, just to be sure.

   - Add logic for making some seccomp flags exclusive (Tycho)

   - Update selftests for exclusivity testing (Kees)"

* tag 'seccomp-v5.1-rc8' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux:
  seccomp: Make NEW_LISTENER and TSYNC flags exclusive
  selftests/seccomp: Prepare for exclusive seccomp flags

kernel/seccomp.c

@@ -502,7 +502,10 @@ seccomp_prepare_user_filter(const char __user *user_filter)
  *
  * Caller must be holding current->sighand->siglock lock.
  *
- * Returns 0 on success, -ve on error.
+ * Returns 0 on success, -ve on error, or
+ *   - in TSYNC mode: the pid of a thread which was either not in the correct
+ *     seccomp mode or did not have an ancestral seccomp filter
+ *   - in NEW_LISTENER mode: the fd of the new listener
  */
 static long seccomp_attach_filter(unsigned int flags,
 				  struct seccomp_filter *filter)
@@ -1258,6 +1261,16 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags,
 	if (flags & ~SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_MASK)
 		return -EINVAL;
 
+	/*
+	 * In the successful case, NEW_LISTENER returns the new listener fd.
+	 * But in the failure case, TSYNC returns the thread that died. If you
+	 * combine these two flags, there's no way to tell whether something
+	 * succeeded or failed. So, let's disallow this combination.
+	 */
+	if ((flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC) &&
+	    (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER))
+		return -EINVAL;
+
 	/* Prepare the new filter before holding any locks. */
 	prepared = seccomp_prepare_user_filter(filter);
 	if (IS_ERR(prepared))
@@ -1304,7 +1317,7 @@ static long seccomp_set_mode_filter(unsigned int flags,
 		mutex_unlock(&current->signal->cred_guard_mutex);
 out_put_fd:
 	if (flags & SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER) {
-		if (ret < 0) {
+		if (ret) {
 			listener_f->private_data = NULL;
 			fput(listener_f);
 			put_unused_fd(listener);

tools/testing/selftests/seccomp/seccomp_bpf.c

@@ -2166,11 +2166,14 @@ TEST(detect_seccomp_filter_flags)
 				 SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_LOG,
 				 SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_SPEC_ALLOW,
 				 SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER };
-	unsigned int flag, all_flags;
+	unsigned int exclusive[] = {
+				SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_TSYNC,
+				SECCOMP_FILTER_FLAG_NEW_LISTENER };
+	unsigned int flag, all_flags, exclusive_mask;
 	int i;
 	long ret;
 
-	/* Test detection of known-good filter flags */
+	/* Test detection of individual known-good filter flags */
 	for (i = 0, all_flags = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(flags); i++) {
 		int bits = 0;
 
@@ -2197,16 +2200,29 @@ TEST(detect_seccomp_filter_flags)
 		all_flags |= flag;
 	}
 
-	/* Test detection of all known-good filter flags */
-	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, all_flags, NULL);
+	/*
+	 * Test detection of all known-good filter flags combined. But
+	 * for the exclusive flags we need to mask them out and try them
+	 * individually for the "all flags" testing.
+	 */
+	exclusive_mask = 0;
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(exclusive); i++)
+		exclusive_mask |= exclusive[i];
+	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(exclusive); i++) {
+		flag = all_flags & ~exclusive_mask;
+		flag |= exclusive[i];
+
+		ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
 		EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
 		EXPECT_EQ(EFAULT, errno) {
 			TH_LOG("Failed to detect that all known-good filter flags (0x%X) are supported!",
-		       all_flags);
+			       flag);
+		}
 	}
 
-	/* Test detection of an unknown filter flag */
+	/* Test detection of an unknown filter flags, without exclusives. */
 	flag = -1;
+	flag &= ~exclusive_mask;
 	ret = seccomp(SECCOMP_SET_MODE_FILTER, flag, NULL);
 	EXPECT_EQ(-1, ret);
 	EXPECT_EQ(EINVAL, errno) {