kernel-hardening - Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] Smack: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE

Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1810040942110.14430@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2018 09:47:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
cc: Casey Schaufler <casey.schaufler@...el.com>, 
    Kernel Hardening <kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>, 
    kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
    linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, 
    selinux@...ho.nsa.gov, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, 
    deneen.t.dock@...el.com, kristen@...ux.intel.com, 
    Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] Smack: Prepare for PTRACE_MODE_SCHED

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018, Jann Horn wrote:

> > Yes. Since the PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT was in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB in Jiri's 
> > previous patch set and not in PTRACE_MODE_SCHED in this one I assumed 
> > that there was a good reason for it.
> 
> Jiri, was there a good reason for it, and if so, what was it?

[ FWIW PTRACE_MODE_NOAUDIT being in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB goes back to original 
  Tim's pre-CRD patchset ]

Well, we can't really call out into audit from scheduler code, and the 
previous versions of the patchsets didn't have PTRACE_MODE_SCHED, so it 
had to be included in PTRACE_MODE_IBPB in order to make sure we're not 
calling into audit from context switch code.

Or did I misunderstand the question?

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.