linux-kernel - Re: PR_SET_SECCOMP and PR_GET

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:12:14 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
Cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com>,
	Ivana Varekova <varekova@...hat.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-man@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PR_SET_SECCOMP and PR_GET_SECCOMP doc (and bug?)

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:32:29 +0200, Michael Kerrisk said:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@...ranet.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 02:15:13PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:

> >>     PR_GET_SECCOMP (since Linux 2.6.23)
> >>         Return the secure computing mode  of  the  calling  thread.
> >>         Not  very  useful: if the caller is not in secure computing
> >>         mode, this operation returns 0; if the caller is in  secure
> >>         computing  mode, then the prctl() call will cause a SIGKILL
> >>         signal to be sent to the process.  This operation  is  only
> >>         available  if  the kernel is configured with CONFIG_SECCOMP
> >>         enabled.

Would it make sense to change the text to read "Not very useful for the
current implementation of mode=1" and/or add that it may be useful for
future modes that allow prctl() modes other than 1?

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped