|
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvxtK7Dqw_PDqkMjNYzWyYdqx5CRYLB4+o=S5zHy2CgiTQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 20:47:16 +0200 From: richard -rw- weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com> To: Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, hpa@...or.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, mcgrathr@...omium.org, tglx@...utronix.de, luto@....edu, eparis@...hat.com, serge.hallyn@...onical.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 Subject: Re: seccomp and ptrace. what is the correct order? On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Eric Paris <netdev@...isplace.org> wrote: > Is that what we want? Do we want to do the permission check based on > what a process ask at syscall enter or do we want to do the permission > check based on what the kernel is actually going to do on behalf of > the process? I think we want the latter. A system call emulator like UserModeLinux would benefit from that. -- Thanks, //richard
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.