Re: [Virtio-fs] [PATCH 13/13] virtiofsd, seccomp: Add clock_nanosleep() to allow list

[Stefan Hajnoczi]

On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 11:16:18AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 01:22:58PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:30:37AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > g_usleep() calls nanosleep() and that now seems to call clock_nanosleep()
> > > syscall. Now these patches are making use of g_usleep(). So add
> > > clock_nanosleep() to list of allowed syscalls.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_seccomp.c | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_seccomp.c 
> > > b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_seccomp.c
> > > index cd24b40b78..03080806c0 100644
> > > --- a/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_seccomp.c
> > > +++ b/tools/virtiofsd/passthrough_seccomp.c
> > > @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static const int syscall_allowlist[] = {
> > >      SCMP_SYS(writev),
> > >      SCMP_SYS(umask),
> > >      SCMP_SYS(nanosleep),
> > > +    SCMP_SYS(clock_nanosleep),
> > 
> > This patch can be dropped once sleep has been replaced by a condvar.
> 
> There is another sleep in do_pool_destroy() where we are waiting
> for all current threads to exit.
> 
> do_pool_destroy() {
>     g_usleep(10000);
> }

That won't be necessary if there's a way to avoid the thread pool :).
See my other reply about closing the OFD instead of using signals to
cancel blocking fcntl(2).

Stefan

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature