[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120227175407.GD10608@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:54:07 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
davem@...emloft.net, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com,
serge.hallyn@...onical.com, djm@...drot.org, scarybeasts@...il.com,
indan@....nu, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
corbet@....net, eric.dumazet@...il.com, markus@...omium.org,
coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 10/12] ptrace,seccomp: Add PTRACE_SECCOMP support
On 02/24, Will Drewry wrote:
>
> arch/Kconfig | 1 +
> include/linux/ptrace.h | 7 +++++--
> include/linux/seccomp.h | 4 +++-
> include/linux/tracehook.h | 6 ++++++
> kernel/ptrace.c | 4 ++++
> kernel/seccomp.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
FYI, this conflicts with the changes -mm tree.
The changes in ptrace.* confict with Denys's
"ptrace: simplify PTRACE_foo constants and PTRACE_SETOPTIONS code"
The change in tracehook.h conflicts with
"ptrace: the killed tracee should not enter the syscall"
> --- a/kernel/seccomp.c
> +++ b/kernel/seccomp.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,24 @@ int __secure_computing_int(int this_syscall)
> seccomp_send_sigsys(this_syscall, reason_code);
> return -1;
> }
> + case SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: {
> + int ret;
> + struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current);
> + if (!(test_tsk_thread_flag(current, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE)) ||
> + !(current->ptrace & PT_TRACE_SECCOMP))
> + return -1;
> + /*
> + * PT_TRACE_SECCOMP and seccomp.trace indicate whether
> + * tracehook_report_syscall_entry needs to signal the
> + * tracer. This avoids race conditions in hand off and
> + * the requirement for TIF_SYSCALL_TRACE ensures that
> + * we are in the syscall slow path.
> + */
> + current->seccomp.trace = 1;
> + ret = tracehook_report_syscall_entry(regs);
> + current->seccomp.trace = 0;
> + return ret;
To be honest, this interface looks a bit strange to me...
Once again, sorry if this was already discussed. But perhaps it would
be better to introduce PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP/PTRACE_O_SECCOMP instead?
SECCOMP_RET_TRACE: could simply do ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_SECCOMP)
unconditionaly. The tracer can set the option and do PTRACE_CONT if it
doesn't want the system call notifications.
This is also much simpler, no need to change ptrace/tracehook files.
Oleg.
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.
