|
Message-ID: <CAB=4xhp3WYoD6RnY+Y=XV18RiCLOeT-dsDmHxAVUYpaSUMpZdA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 11:07:31 -0700 From: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr@...gle.com> To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> Cc: Will Drewry <wad@...omium.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 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, luto@....edu, 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, jmorris@...ei.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] move the secure_computing call On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 9:13 AM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote: > I think this really screws with using seccomp for self-interception. I > wouldn't inherently be opposed to the following flow: > > seccomp -> ptrace -> seccomp > > ... i.e. if ptrace is enabled and we enable something, run it through > seccomp again, but there are bunch of use cases (mostly involving > SIGSYS) where doing ptrace before seccomp is just bizarre. Are you sure? This is ptrace syscall tracing going first. If seccomp generates a SIGSYS, then ptrace will still get its opportunity to intercept the signal and change the register state however it likes. Thanks, Roland
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.