|
Message-ID: <CAObL_7GHEdoyzVPjhR5U0RvQhRP50e6YM83CkXifzUKOFb+KHQ@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:43:29 -0700 From: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@....edu> To: James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mcgrathr@...gle.com, hpa@...or.com, indan@....nu, netdev@...isplace.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, mingo@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org, rdunlap@...otime.net, tglx@...utronix.de, serge.hallyn@...onical.com, pmoore@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, corbet@....net, markus@...omium.org, coreyb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@...omium.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 4:40 PM, James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org> wrote: > On Thu, 24 May 2012, Will Drewry wrote: > >> As is, the biggest benefit of this change is just setting consistent >> expectations in what the ptrace/seccomp interactions should be. The >> current ability for ptrace to "bypass" secure computing (by remapping >> allowed system calls) is not necessarily a problem, but it is not >> necessarily intuitive behavior. > > Indeed -- while the purpose of seccomp is to reduce the attack surface of > the syscall interface, if a user allows ptrace, attackers will definitely > see that as an attack vector, if it allows them to increase that attack > surface. > > It at least needs to be well-documented. IMO the behavior should change. Alternatively, a post-ptrace syscall should have to pass the *tracer's* seccomp filter, but that seems overcomplicated and confusing. OTOH, allowing ptrace in a seccomp filter is asking for trouble anyway -- if you can ptrace something outside the sandbox, you've escaped. --Andy
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.