[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABqD9ha8qWFZFp1RCSgseH-AbX+00dKpxoN4zguctDQTWuXbuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:34:45 -0600
From: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de, davem@...emloft.net, mingo@...hat.com,
oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net,
tglx@...utronix.de, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.com,
djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com, pmoore@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
markus@...omium.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v10 07/11] signal, x86: add SIGSYS
info and make it synchronous.
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@....nu> wrote:
> On Thu, February 23, 2012 20:26, Will Drewry wrote:
>> Seems like there's an argument for another return code,
>> SECCOMP_RET_CORE, that resets/unblocks the SIGSYS handler since the
>> existing TRAP and KILL options seem to cover the other paths (signal
>> handler and do_exit).
>
> What about making SECCOMP_RET_TRAP dump core/send SIGSYS if there is
> no tracer with PTRACE_O_SECCOMP set? And perhaps go for a blockable
> SIGSYS? That way you only have KILL, ERRNO and TRAP, with the last
> one meaning deny, but giving someone else a chance to do something.
> Or is that just confusing?
I don't think it makes sense to mix up signal delivery for in-process
handling and ptrace. In particular, TRACE calls must assume t the
ptracer actually enacted a policy, but with TRAP as is, it always
rejects it.
> I don't think there should be too many return values, or else you
> put too much runtime policy into the filters.
I'd rather make it explicit than not. This will be a quagmire if any
behavior is implicit.
> Sending SIGSYS is useful, but it's quite a bit less useful if user
> space can't handle it in a signal handler, so I don't think it's
> worth it to make a unblockable version.
I believe the point here would be that you'd get a useful coredump
without needing to enforce that the process can't handle normal SIGSYS
or other syscalls by blocking signal masking.
cheers!
will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
